IIKHVn 


I 


I 


1 1|  $  &i  • 
I HHH  i 


lllii'i:1;. 

ill 


nil:  I 


Si! 

■l    i 

■Ml  P* 

■nwi 

■hhp 
w 

1MI 

;  H  H  ill  *  HI  *  j  i  iiji  IS! 

ait  liHiii! 

M  !     iiiHiiiilii!! 

.11111111 

■■IIS 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

Microsoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/colemanethicsOOcolerich 


SOCIAL  ETHICS 


SOCIAL  ETHICS 

An  Introduction  to  the 
Nature  and  Ethics  of  the  State 


JAMES  MELVILLE  COLEMAN 

Sterrett  Professor  of  Political  Philosophy  and  History, 
Geneva  College 


New  York  Chicago  Toronto 

Fleming   H.  Revell   Company 

London  and  Edinburgh 


Copyright,  1903,  1916,  1922,  by 
FLEMING  H.  REVELL  COMPANY 


e  ?  r 


New  York:  158  Fifth  Avenue 
Chicago:  17  North  Wabash  Ave. 
London:  21  Paternoster  Square 
Edinburgh:      75     Princes    Street 


TO   MY  WIFE  AND  DAUGHTER 


841613 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER   I. 
The  Nature  of  the  Nation-State 13 

CHAPTER  II. 
Social  Institutions 44 

CHAPTER  III. 
Church  and  State 56 

CHAPTER  IV. 
State  and  the  Individual 71 

CHAPTER  V. 
Factors  of  Social  Union 91 

CHAPTER  VI. 
Social  Mind ■ in 

CHAPTER  VII. 
Social  Conscience 141 

CHAPTER  VIII. 
Social  Forces 173 

CHAPTER  IX. 
Sovereignty  of  the  State 201 

CHAPTER  X. 
Law 224 

CHAPTER  XI. 
Authority. 246 

CHAPTER  XII. 
General    Principles   of   Authority 271 

CHAPTER  XIII. 
The  Social  Confession  of  Christ 286 

CHAPTER  XIV. 
What  Constitutes  a  Christian  State 30S 


FOREWORD 

Nineteen  hundred  years  ago  an  exile  of  the  Roman 
Empire  was  on  a  lonely  Rock  in  the  ^Egean.  He  was  not 
there  because  he  had  done  his  neighbor  wrong,  but  be- 
cause he  believed  in  the  coming  of  an  organized  society 
which  would  not  rest  on  injustice.  He  had  even  dared 
to  promise  the  coming  of  this  new  social  order  to  the 
toilers  that  he  met. 

Standing  on  this  rock  lookout  the  exile  saw  a  new 
Empire  rise  such  as  the  world  had  never  known.  In  it 
were  no  slaves,  there  were  none  that  suffered  wrong  and 
the  ruler  was  a  workman  with  calloused  hands.  While 
he  looked  he  listened,  and  through  the  stillness  came  a 
voice.  "The  kingdoms  of  this  world  are  become  the 
Kingdom  of  our  Lord  and  of  His  Christ."  The  exile 
believed  in  the  vision  and  the  voice.  He  told  what  he 
had  seen  and  heard  to  others  and  they  with  gladness 
believed  with  him.  It  was  their  confidence  that  not  only 
is  there  an  individual,  but  a  social  soul,  to  be  saved. 
Before  both  of  them  is  righteousness  and  the  Kingdom 
of  God  and  the  approach  is  through  a  divine  man  who 
calls  himself  The  Way. 

After  nineteen  centuries  the  vision  of  the  exile  is  not 
realized  and  those  who  have  trusted  in  it  must  still  walk 
by  faith.  The  curse  of  sin  still  rests  on  the  fairest  works 
of  God.    War  and  hatred  and  greed  and  tears  are  yet  the 


FOREWORD 

burden  of  the  peoples.  Satan  still  holds  the  kingdoms  of 
the  world.  But  we  believe  in  the  vision  and  in  the  con- 
quering power  of  the  imperial  Christ. 

It  is  in  this  faith  that  this  little  book  is  written  and  sent 
out  with  its  halting  message.  If  America  is  to  be  saved 
her  citizens  must  learn  that  she  is  a  soul  and  needs  a 
Savior.  They  must  learn  that  our  real  dangers  are  from 
internal  sin  and  not  from  external  foes.  Men  have  tried 
all  other  paths  to  peace  with  their  f ellowmen  except  that 
way  that  lies  through  peace  with  God.  And  they  have 
failed.  There  is  a  Way,  and  if  these  chapters  aid  in  the 
humblest  degree  in  pointing  out  this  Way  and  in  making 
America  loyal  to  her  Christ  they  will  have  served  their 
purpose. 


PREFACE. 

In  these  days,  when  the  social  mind  is  troubled  with 
a  plethora  of  books,  the  writer  who  proposes  an  addition 
to  the  number  should  be  ready  to  give  a  reason  for  the 
hope  that  is  in  him.  There  is  no  lack  of  social  studies, 
but  it  seems  to  me  that  there  is  room  for  a  book  which 
treats  social  phenomena  from  a  distinctively  Christian 
point  of  view,  and  yet  gives  adequate  place  to  the  con- 
clusions of  science  and  philosophy.  What  is  wanted  is 
a  Christian  cosmic  philosophy,  for  philosophy  must  be 
Christian  to  be  cosmic. 

Mr.  Herbert  Spencer  tried  to  build  a  cosmic  philosophy 
on  the  basis  of  matter  and  motion ;  Mr.  John  Fiske  went 
so  far  as  to  admit  that  science  could  not  disprove  im- 
mortality; but  the  last  word  on  the  philosophy  of  the 
universe  must  not  ignore  spiritual  facts.  Science  must 
come  to  recognize  the  fact  that  spirit  is  supreme  over 
matter,  rather  than  dependent  on  matter  for  existence. 

I  believe  that  the  student  must  look  at  the  facts  of 
the  universe  from  the  position  of  Jesus,  if  he  is  to  gain 
the  proper  perspective.  Thus  may  he  hope  to  find  the 
harmony  of  the  universe.  "  In  Him  all  things  consist," 
and  the  view  which  leaves  Jesus  Christ  out  of  the  uni- 
verse, or  makes  Him  anything  less  than  a  controlling 
factor,  is  fatally  defective.  These  pages  have  no  such 
ambitious  aim  as  the  statement  of  a  world  philosophy, 
yet  the  declaration  is  ventured  that  the  cosmic  philosophy, 


PREFACE 

when  stated,  will  include  these  premises.  Jesus  Christ 
must  be  taken  as  the  point  of  departure  and  approach. 
His  will  must  be  seen  as  the  governing  agency  in  mat- 
ter; His  teachings  must  be  accepted  as  the  ultimate  rule 
of  human  life.  This  is  the  view  with  which  these  pages 
have  been  written. 

This  work,  put  together  in  the  broken  time  of  con- 
tinuous school  work,  was  designed  specially  for  the  con- 
venience of  my  classes,  but  I  am  not  without  the  hope 
that  it  may  serve  the  same  purpose  for  other  teachers, 
and  that  the  general  reader  will  not  find  it  altogether 
unsuited  to  his  needs.  With  this  latter  class  in  mind, 
technical  matter  has  been  omitted  as  far  as  possible.  Not 
to  the  classroom  alone  can  be  left  the  solution  of  the 
social  problem,  which  solution  is  the  social  crowning 
of  the  Christ. 

Foot-note  references  have  been  omitted,  and  instead 
reference  is  made  to  books  and  chapters,  in  the  hope 
that  the  reader  may  not  rest  satisfied  with  the  reading 
of  detached  sentences,  but  will  study  the  author  for  him- 
self. For  the  most  part,  however,  the  attempt  has  been 
made  to  interpret  the  commonplace  facts,  which  are  so 
familiar  as  to  need  no  reference. 

In  order  to  avoid  the  difficulty,  peculiar  to  American 
politics,  of  confusing  the  "  State,"  the  social  spirit,  with 
the  "  State "  as  a  member  of  the  Federal  Union,  the 
word  Commonwealth  has  been  substituted  for  "  State  " 
in  the  latter  sense. 

I  am  indebted  to  my  brother,  Rev.  W.  J.  Coleman, 
through   whose  suggestion  this  work  was  undertaken, 


PREFACE 

and  whose  advice  has  been  of  great  service  in  its  prep- 
aration. The  discussion  of  authority  has  its  basis  in 
a  course  of  lectures  delivered  by  him  in  Geneva  College. 
The  conception  of  the  State  and  the  relation  which  it 
bears  to  social  institutions,  is  drawn  from  the  teaching 
and  the  writings  of  Professor  John  Dewey. 

Scarcely  less  than  to  these  do  I  owe  a  debt  of  grati- 
tude to  the  students,  past  and  present,  whose  keen  criti- 
cisms in  class  discussions  have  weeded  out  some  of  the 
defects  in  the  book,  and  to  others  who  have  given  their 
time  to  the  correcting  of  the  pages  as  they  passed  through 
the  press. 

Fully  conscious  that  this  work  is  not  a  final  statement 
of  the  views  which  it  aims  to  present,  I  give  it  to  the 
public  in  the  hope  that  it  may  point  the  way  to  some 
complete  embodiment  of  the  social  truth  which  shall 
"make  us  free/' 


SOCIAL  ETHICS 


THE  NATURE  OF  THE  NATION-STATE ' 

Tommy  Morgan  had  scarcely  finished  his  argument  in 
Chicago  Commons  that  labor  difficulties  were  to  be  settled 
by  the  teachings  of  Jesus  when  a  stranger  was  on  his  feet 
to  answer  him. 

"What  this  man  has  just  told  you,"  said  the  new- 
comer, "is  dead  wrong.  This  world  has  always  been, 
will  always  be,  ruled  by  force.  By  force  kings  have 
reigned.  By  force  empires  have  risen  and  stood.  Force 
is  the  world  law.  What  the  last  speaker  has  been  saying 
about  love  is  foolishness.  Love  never  has,  and  never  can, 
rule." 

Pagan  Ethics. 

This  discussion  in  the  free  forum  of  Chicago  Com- 
mons states  the  issue  which  is  as  old  as  human  history. 
Is  love,  or  force,  the  ruling  principle  of  the  world  of 
men?  It  was  in  the  belief  that  force  was  supreme  in 
international  affairs  that  Germany  made  her  appeal  to 
the  god  of  war  in  1914  and  backed  the  appeal  with  all 
the  science  of  the  age. 

Some  men  said  then  that  Christianity  had  failed  be- 
cause it  had  not  prevented  war.     Very  few  would  say 

1  Prepared  for  this  edition  of  Social  Ethics. 
13 


14  ;     SOCIAL  ETHICS 

that  new.  They  are  saying  that  Christianity  has  not 
failed  in  international  relations  for  the  reason  that, 
except  in  isolated  cases,  it  has  not  been  tried.  The 
diplomacy  of  the  world  has  been  based  on  force,  in  fact 
John  Hay  was  almost  the  first  to  propose  any  other  prin- 
ciple. So  that  when  Germany  appealed  to  force  she  had 
centuries  of  diplomacy  in  her  favor. 

Then  why  did  Germany  fail?  Not  through  lack  of 
preparation !  Not  through  lack  of  organization !  Never 
was  force  so  well  organized,  so  thoroughly  ready,  so  able 
to  strike  savage  blows.  There  is  only  one  reason  that 
seems  sufficient  and  that  is  that  Tommy  Morgan  was 
right  when  he  said  that  there  was  something  in  the  world 
stronger  than  force. 

Now  if  men  are  matter  rather  than  mind,  if  they  are 
ruled  by  material  interests  and  ends,  as  our  Marxian 
friends  tell  us  they  are,  then  force  is  the  ultimate  law. 
But  if  men  are  after  all  fundamentally  mind,  then  spirit 
forces  must  dominate.  This  was  the  issue  which  the 
Assyrians  raised  with  Hezekiah  when  they  declared  that 
in  the  name  of  the  god  of  force  the  Assyrians  had 
ravaged  cities,  desolated  provinces,  and  destroyed  em- 
pires. It  was  the  same  pagan  language  which  was  used 
by  William  Second,  when  he  issued  his  address  to  his 
soldiers  on  the  way  to  Pekin  and  that  we  occasionally 
read  in  our  own  Army  and  Navy  Journal. 

Did  the  answer  to  the  Assyrians  when  one  hundred 
and  eighty-five  thousand  of  their  soldiers  fell  in  a  night 
in  the  Serbonian  bog,  or  the  issue  of  the  World  War,  give 
any  answer  to  the  question  whether  this  world  is  ruled 
by  impersonal  force,  or  a  righteous  God?  Somewhere, 
and  somehow,  we  must  decide  whether  human  affairs  are 


THE  NATURE  OF  THE  NATION-STATE  15 

governed  by  pagan  or  Christian  ethics.  And  that  is  de- 
cided by  whether  men  are  fundamentally  matter,  or  mind. 
Certainly  paganism  and  Christianity  may  not  finally 
divide  the  empire  of  the  world.  One,  on  other,  must 
triumph. 

The  Ancient  Sanction  for  Pagan  Ethics, 

Now  while  pagan  ethics,  like  the  poor,  is  always  with 
us,  the  sanction  for  this  code  has  changed  with  the  age. 
In  ancient  times  the  monarchs  of  Egypt  and  Assyria, 
later  of  Greece  and  Rome,  were  supposed  to  represent 
the  gods  of  the  lands,  so  that  their  crimes  against  hu- 
manity were  understood  to  be  done  in  execution  of  the 
will  of  "  the  gods  of  things  as  they  are."  When  Genseric 
was  asked  where  he  was  going  with  his  pirate  ships  he 
said,  "Against  the  people  with  whom  god  is  angry.,, 
Alexander  felt  himself  so  much  in  need  of  a  divine  com- 
mission to  sanctify  his  depredations  that  he  went  a  jour- 
ney into  the  desert  to  have  a  priest  discover  his  divine 
lineage. 

But  as  the  centuries  went  by,  the  pagans  in  the  land  of 
the  West  ceased  to  believe  in  the  gods  of  the  old  form 
and  it  was  necessary  that  the  ethics  of  force  should  get 
some  new  basis,  or  be  discredited  and  fall  into  disrepute 
along  with  those  who  lived  by  its  precepts. 

The  New  Sanction  for  Pagan  Ethics, 

Somewhat  more  than  half  a  century  ago  a  quiet  Eng- 
lishman named  Charles  Darwin  announced  a  theory  to 
the  world  which  has  done  more  to  influence  the  thinking 
of  men,  or  to  justify  certain  ways  of  thinking,  than  any 


16  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

other  hypothesis  of  modern  times.  Nor,  as  far  as  the 
theory  itself  was  concerned,  could  one  have  expected 
such  important  results,  for  Darwin  himself  did  not  pro- 
pose it  as  a  philosophy  of  life.  What  he  claimed  to  have 
discovered  was  the  origin  of  species,  while  the  pagan 
mind  seized  upon  it  as  an  explanation  of  the  universe  of 
things  and  men. 

What  Darwin  claimed  as  the  result  of  his  investigations 
was  that  animal  life,  and  he  did  not  go  beyond  that,  had 
been  produced  in  prodigal  abundance.  And  so  great  was 
this  abundance  that  the  food  supply  was  insufficient, 
making  the  attempt  to  obtain  food  for  the  over  supply 
of  mouths  a  struggle  for  life  in  which  those  individuals 
best  suited  to  the  particular  environment  survived  and 
those  less  suited  perished.  Thus  we  have  as  a  result  of 
variations  and  the  struggle  for  life  what  Darwin  called 
the  survival  of  the  fittest  through  natural  selection. 

This  Darwin  said  was  the  law  of  life  and  progress  in 
the  animal  world  and  beyond  that  limit  he  modestly  did 
not  venture.  He  left  to  the  adventurers,  who  followed, 
the  task  of  using  the  Darwinian  hypothesis  for  the  ex- 
planation of  things  in  general  from  the  crayfish  to  Higher 
Criticism. 

Indeed  Darwinism  has  served  purposes  of  which  its 
author  never  dreamed.  The  belief  in  divine  right  had 
been  used  as  the  sanction  for  the  ethics  of  force  in  be- 
half of  predatory  individuals  and  classes  for  centuries 
until  it  ceased  to  function.  This  left  the  self-interest  of 
industrial  and  political  kings  and  predatory  nations  sorely 
in  need  of  some  justification  for  the  practices  they  had 
elected  to  follow  and  what  could  be  so  acceptable  to  the 
selfish  interests  of  the  world  as  this  theory  which  made 


THE  NATURE  OF  THE  NATION-STATE  17 

struggle  and  the  extermination  of  the  weak  as  unfit,  the 
law  of  life. 

"  Let  him  get  who  has  the  power 
And  let  him  keep  who  can," 

no  longer  needed  an  excuse  when  it  was  exalted  into 
scientific  dogma.  So  it  was  not  alone  its  scientific  ap- 
peal which  gave  Darwinism  its  immediate  popularity, 
but  also  the  fact  that  it  gave  support  to  practices  of  men 
and  nations  that  were  as  old  as  sin.  To  all  such  this  new 
scientific  contribution  was  as  manna  in  the  desert. 

Now  since  natural  selection  could  be  hailed  as  a  law 
of  the  universe,  not  only  in  the  lower  forms  of  life,  but 
also  in  human  affairs,  and  since  human  progress  was  con- 
ditioned on  struggle  through  which  the  fittest  was  se- 
lected, then  the  extermination  of  the  weaker  nation,  or 
the  weaker  individual,  is  not  only  excusable,  but  com- 
mendable. Individual  and  national  selfishness  was  not 
only  justified  but  glorified.  So  natural  selection  became 
successively  with  its  devotees  a  scientific  hypothesis  to 
explain  the  origin  of  species,  a  universal  theory  of  life, 
and  finally  a  religion  for  those  who  had  no  other. 

Its  Individual  and  National  Application. 

But  while  Darwinism  may  be  accepted  as  an  ethical 
code  either  by  individuals,  or  nations,  it  is  applied  in  quite 
a  different  fashion  in  the  two  cases.  In  its  application 
to  the  individual  it  means  his  development  in  efficiency 
through  his  integration  in  his  own  interest,  his  entire 
absorption  in  his  struggle  for  his  own  hand.  As  Ben- 
jamin Kidd  states  the  case,  "It  is  the  science  of  the 
causes  which  have  made  those  who  are  efficient  in  the 


18  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

struggle  for  their  own  interests  supreme  and  omnipotent 
in  the  world." 

But  the  integration  which  makes  a  nation  efficient  must 
be  secured  in  quite  a  different  way.  Professor  Burgess, 
who  had  fully  absorbed  the  Prussian  idea  of  the  ethics  of 
force,  says  there  must  be  a  struggle  between  nations  to 
prevent  national  stagnation,  so  international  war  is  neces- 
sary to  national  life.  But  there  must  be  no  civil  war. 
This  would  destroy  the  nation.  If  all  the  citizens  pur- 
sued the  methods  of  natural  selection  the  final  outcome 
would  be  the  same  as  that  of  the  Kilkenny  cats. 

So  in  a  nation  where  the  ethics  of  force  is  taken  as  the 
method  of  international  diplomacy,  sacrifice  is  demanded 
in  internal  affairs  and  the  more  force  is  applied  outward, 
the  greater  the  demand  for  sacrifice  within.  The  Prus- 
sian citizen  was  taught  to  lose  himself  in  the  state  of 
which  the  Kaiser  was  the  visible  symbol.  Thus  did  the 
Prussian  ideal  of  struggle  between  Germany  and  other 
nations  that  she  might  have  her  place  in  the  sun,  and 
the  renunciation  on  the  part  of  the  individual  citizen 
within,  produce  the  most  efficient  fighting  force  in  in- 
dustry and  war  that  the  world  has  known. 

So  we  can  understand  Prussian  diplomacy.  Belgium 
was  weak,  France  decadent.  Therefore  the  destruction 
of  these  nations  would  be  a  blessing  to  humanity,  even 
to  these  nations  themselves,  provided  that  Germany  ad- 
ministered the  affairs  of  the  deceased.  "Weakness," 
said  Treitschke,  "  is  the  greatest  national  crime."  There- 
fore the  wiping  out  of  the  Serbian  nationality  would  have 
aided  human  progress.  All  the  conquerors  from  Sargon 
to  William  Second  had  acted  on  the  same  code  of  ethics, 
but  only  in  recent  times  could  it  claim  a  scientific  basis. 


THE  NATURE  OF  THE  NATION-STATE  19 

Treitschke  asserts,  "  It  is  hypocrisy  to  apply  the  Sermon 
on  the  Mount  to  national  life,"  for  while  the  individual 
has  a  duty  to  sacrifice  to  national  interests,  there  is  noth- 
ing higher  than  the  nation  for  which  sacrifice  may  be 
made.  And  every  militarist  from  Berlin  to  Washington 
would  echo  the  saying  of  Treitschke,  for  this  form  of 
pagan  belief  is  not  peculiar  to  any  language,  or  country. 
Prussianism,  which  is  used  here  as  another  name  for 
pagan  ethics,  is  not  bounded  by  political  lines.  Our  boys 
died  to  kill  it  in  France  and  our  statesmen  practice  it  in 
Washington.     Prussianism  is  a  state  of  mind. 

Beliefs  Rule  the  World. 

Beliefs  rule  individuals.  Belief  is  related  to  act  as 
root  to  fruit.  An  individual's  belief  decides  his  attitude 
to  God  and  to  his  neighbors.  Paganism  is  what  it  is 
because  of  its  belief.  Christianity  is  such  because  of  its 
belief.  One  can  be  changed  into  the  other  by  a  change 
of  belief.  An  uncertain  faith  means  an  unstable  life. 
"According  to  thy  faith  be  it  unto  thee,"  is  prophetic  of 
every  life. 

Beliefs  rule  nations.  Some  have  emperors,  some 
kings,  and  some  presidents  to  reign  over  them,  but  every- 
where the  popular  belief  guides  the  affairs  of  the  people. 
England  is  not  ruled  by  King  George,  or  by  Lloyd- 
George.     England  is  ruled  by  what  England  thinks. 

While  other  peoples  looked  on  the  Prussian  order  as 
enslaving,  the  Prussian  citizen  accepted  it  as  his  service 
to  the  Fatherland.  What  made  Germany  a  unity,  to  her 
neighbors  a  deadly  unity,  was  not  her  army  nor  her 
industry,  nor  her  laws.  It  was  her  belief.  And  so  great 
was  the  enthusiasm  of  her  belief  that  it  induced  belief  in 


20  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

others.  She  believed  so  thoroughly  that  her  system  of 
education  was  the  best,  that  her  industry  was  the  best, 
that  other  peoples,  Americans  among  them,  went  to  Ger- 
many to  school.  Germany  was  winning  the  world  to  her 
belief  until  she  broke  the  spell  in  19 14. 

When  the  war  correspondent  tells  his  story  it  is  of  the 
clash  of  bodies  of  men,  large  or  small,  along  the  line  of 
battle.  But  that  is  not  the  whole  story,  not  even  the 
chief  part  of  it.  It  was  a  new  belief  in  Prussia,  which 
Koerner  put  into  song,  that  turned  the  tide  at  Waterloo 
against  Napoleon.  The  agony  of  that  furrowed  field 
from  the  North  Sea  to  Switzerland  during  four  years 
was  a  conflict  of  beliefs.  Germany  made  her  mistakes, 
not  at  all  in  her  military  preparations,  but  in  her  psy- 
chology. She  had  studied  the  military  plans  of  other 
nations,  but  not  their  beliefs.  So  she  made  her  mistakes 
about  Belgium,  about  England,  about  the  Colonials,  about 
the  United  States.  Military  men  figure  on  the  number 
of  men  and  guns  they  can  concentrate  at  a  given  point, 
but  beliefs  decide  the  campaign. 

Many  things  have  been  said  and  written  about  how, 
and  when,  and  where,  the  Allies  won  the  World  War, 
so  one  more  venture  need  not  be  amiss.  The  war  was 
won  on  the  day  when  those  on  both  sides  of  the  battle 
line  came  to  believe  that  the  Allies  were  somehow  fight- 
ing for  democracy,  for  the  chance  for  the  weaker  nations, 
for  the  right  of  each  man  and  each  people  to  express 
what  was  in  the  life.  Then  the  war  ceased  to  mean 
simply  getting  so  many  prisoners,  so  many  dead,  so  many 
yards  of  trenches.  Victory,  with  the  new  ideal,  meant  a 
new  world.  Along  with  that  new  belief  the  rifle  strength 
of  the  German  army  fell  off  one-half  from  March  to 


THE  NATURE  OF  THE  NATION-STATE  21 

October  of  1918.  And  the  man  who  was  able  to  give 
to  the  men  in  the  trenches  and  the  folks  at  home  a  new 
faith  and  belief  was  the  one,  more  than  any  other,  who 
won  the  war. 

That  men  have  been  disillusioned  since  then  and  have 
lost  their  faith,  that  the  governments  and  the  statesmen 
of  the  great  powers  are  still  following  in  the  beaten  path 
of  pagan  ethics,  does  not  change  the  fact  that,  for  a  time, 
the  world  was  in  the  possession  of  a  new  belief  which 
ruled  its  destinies.  And  the  fact  that,  even  for  a  brief 
hour,  the  world  seemed  transformed  by  a  new  faith  shows 
how  the  old  prophecy  may  be  fulfilled  and  nations  may  be 
born  in  a  day. 

Beliefs  Change  the  World. 

According  to  the  Darwinian  theory  of  progress  through 
natural  selection  the  process  is  infinitely  slow.  Ages  are 
required  to  make  any  important  change. 

But  that  theory  utterly  fails  to  explain  the  change  in 
Germany  in  two  generations  from  the  ideals  of  Carl 
Schurz  to  those  of  Treitschke,  or  the  changes  in  the 
world  since  1914.  "As  a  man  thinketh  in  his  heart  so  is 
he."  This  is  no  less  true  of  a  nation.  When  a  man 
changes  his  mind  it  changes  the  man.  When  a  nation 
changes  its  mind  the  nation  is  changed.  When  Ross  tells 
us  about  "  Changing  China,"  he  is  writing  of  the  change 
of  the  Chinese  mind. 

Benjamin  Kidd  says,  "There  is  no  form  or  order  of 
government  or  of  the  dominion  of  force  which  cannot 
be  removed  out  of  the  world  in  a  generation." 

President  Wilson  declares,  "  There  is  nothing  that  can 
stand  in  the  way  of  great  and  triumphant  convictions." 


22  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

Robert  E.  Speer  writes,  "When  the  Church  learns  to 
pray  as  it  has  put  itself  into  other  activities  the  Kingdom 
of  God  will  come."  So  scientist  and  statesman  and 
churchman  agree  that  changing  the  belief  of  the  world 
will  change  the  world.  And  that  is  possible  only  because 
individuals  and  nations  are  fundamentally  mind. 

John  C.  Calhoun  struggled  to  keep  the  slavery  issue 
out  of  the  field  of  morals  because  he  knew  that  if  once 
the  conscience  of  the  people  pronounced  against  it, 
slavery  was  doomed.  That  was  what  killed  slavery, 
what  killed  the  saloon.  When  that  brand  is  put  on  any 
institution  it  goes  out,  like  Cain,  from  the  presence  of 
men. 

The  world  hates  war,  our  boys  died  in  France  to  put 
an  end  to  war.  But  the  governments  of  the  great  powers, 
trained  in  pagan  diplomacy,  are  busy  getting  ready  for 
war.  More  than  nine-tenths  of  the  Federal  revenue 
in  United  States  is  going  for  the  payment  of  past  and 
future  war.  We  have  done  something  to  put  an  end  to 
Prussianism  in  Berlin.  What  shall  we  do  with  it  in 
Washington?  One  thing  seems  evident  and  that  is  that 
we  can  not  end  war  by  showing  its  awful  results.  Bloch 
and  Angell  showed  in  appalling  figures  the  economic  con- 
sequence of  war,  but  that  did  not  prevent  the  debacle 
of  1914.  Far  more  appalling  are  the  facts  that  the 
World  War  furnished,  but  we  are  proposing  to  put  five 
hundred  millions  into  battle  ships  while  millions  of  our 
neighbors  are  starving  for  bread. 

The  thing  that  will  end  war  is  a  passion  for  peace, 
for  peace  that  would  carry  with  it  a  constructive  plan 
for  the  uplift  of  humanity.  Put  into  our  schools,  our 
press,  our  pulpits,  the  devotion  to  humanity  as  Germany 


THE  NATURE  OF  THE  NATION-STATE  23 

taught  it  for  two  generations  for  the  fatherland  and  even 
as  it  united  Germany  for  the  destruction  of  a  continent, 
it  will  unite  America  for  the  redemption  of  a  world. 
Germany  had  the  right  method  but  the  wrong  ideal. 

Mazzini  told  us  long  ago  that  the  discussion  of  rights 
leads  only  to  dissension  and  war.  He  said  we  must 
give  the  place  to  duties  that  has  been  given  to  rights  and 
that  means  that  the  pagan  ethics  of  force  must  give  place 
to  the  Christian  ethics  of  service.  We  have  had  enough 
through  the  years  of  harping  on  national  rights.  The 
time  has  come  to  talk  of  national  duties.  We  need  the 
passion  for  peace  as  a  new  emotional  ideal.  "  The  pas- 
sion for  the  ideal  is  the  passion  for  perfection,  which  is 
the  passion  for  God." 

This  is  a  Mental  World. 

This  is  not  intended  for  a  moment  to  call  in  question 
the  fact  of  matter.  No  one  who  stubs  his  toe  as  a 
bare- footed  boy,  or  butts  his  head  against  a  door  in  later 
life,  need  doubt  the  fact  of  matter. 

But  what  I  am  trying  to  make  clear  is  that  back  of 
matter  and  always  expressing  itself  through  matter  is 
mind.  Mind  is  the  fundamental  thing.  So  we  have  been 
taking  up  the  issues  about  which  all  of  us  are  thinking 
and  showing  that  they  are  psychological  questions.  For 
if  the  world  is  controlled  by  its  ideas,  and  its  ideas  and 
its  beliefs  all  belong  to  mind,  then  mind  is  the  funda- 
mental fact,  without  which  we  could  not  explain  world 
movements  at  all. 

Four  Social  Facts. 

These  four  facts  are  the  individual  mind,  the  national 


24  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

mind,  the  world  mind,  and  the  Divine  mind.  But  in 
stating  these  as  facts  I  am  not  thinking  that  this  puts 
them  beyond  the  sphere  of  discussion.  Indeed,  I  may 
admit  that  each  one  is  called  in  question  by  some  one. 
So  at  this  point  I  wish  to  preface  the  discussion  by  a 
statement  from  President  King  to  the  effect  that  "  The 
true  definition  of  anything  is  what  God  meant  it  to  be." 
So  if  one  should  believe  that  the  national  mind  was  not 
very  definite  so  far  in  United  States,  or  if  he  felt  it 
necessary  to  conclude  that  the  world  mind  was  scarcely 
functioning  to  date,  it  would  still  leave  possible  the  four 
facts  as  stated.  As  for  those  who  question  the  fact  of 
the  divine  mind,  no  evidence  for  that  will  be  offered  in 
these  pages,  nor  would  the  discussion  have  much  interest. 

The  Individual  Mind. 

I  think  that  we  may  safely  take  the  risk  of  presuming 
the  fact  of  the  individual  mind  without  discussion.  It  is 
true  that  if  one  should  appeal  to  the  current  texts  on 
psychology,  in  which  we  may  find  mind  defined  as  "  a 
stream  of  consciousness,"  it  does  not  leave  much  room 
for  the  idea  of  personality. 

However,  if  the  gentle  reader  will,  through  an  appeal 
to  his  own  consciousness,  conclude  that  he  has  a  mind, 
or  rather,  that  he  is  mind,  and  will  allow  the  same  thing 
to  me,  we  shall  consider  the  matter  as  settled.  For  what 
we  want  most  to  conclude  from  the  fact  of  mind  is  the 
consequent  fact  of  responsibility,  responsibility  for  one- 
self, for  his  relationships  and  for  his  realization  through 
them. 

The  World  Mind. 

Is  there  a  world  mind,  even  in  the  process  of  the  mak- 


THE  NATURE  OF  THE  NATION-STATE  25 

ing?  Or,  is  it  only  such  a  dream  as  Abram  had  when 
he  went  out  to  find  the  "  city  which  had  foundations  "  ? 
But  whether  dream  or  reality,  it  is  the  real  question, 
though  it  has  not  been  often  mentioned,  in  the  discussion 
of  the  League  of  Nations.  For  if  there  is  no  world 
mind,  then  there  can  be  no  expression  of  that  mind 
through  league,  or  court,  or  congress.  But  if  there  is  a 
world  mind  it  must  find  some  form  of  expression.  To- 
day with  nearly  fifty  nations  in  the  League,  no  one  is 
likely  to  deny  its  existence,  or  that  it  is  very  much  alive. 
So  that  if  the  working  of  the  League  is  not  a  proof  of 
the  world  mind,  it  may  be  at  least  offered  as  circum- 
stantial evidence. 

There  is  another  link  of  evidence  that  may  be  offered. 
That  was  the  response  which  came  to  President  Wilson's 
appeal  to  make  the  world  safe  for  democracy,  to  give  the 
weaker  peoples  equal  place  with  the  strong.  We  ex- 
pected a  response  from  the  countries  of  the  West,  but 
as  well  it  came  from  the  Arabs  of  Syria  and  Mesopo- 
tamia, from  India,  from  China,  the  whole  world  became 
articulate  in  its  expression  of  hope  for  a  new  social  order 
"  in  which  dwelleth  righteousness."  Everywhere,  out- 
side of  the  elements  of  reaction,  was  an  enthusiasm  for 
freedom  such  as  the  world  had  not  known.  How  shall 
we  understand  this  unity  of  acclaim  other  than  the  infant 
cry  of  a  new  world  ?  How  shall  we  understand  that  peo- 
ples without  a  press,  without  organization,  almost  with- 
out education,  should  have  given  expression  to  the  same 
ideals  for  the  days  to  come.  To  me  it  means  that  the 
tribune  of  the  peoples  called  and  the  peoples  answered. 
And  the  answer  was  as  that  of  a  single  mind. 


26  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

The  Nation-State  is  the  Social  Mind. 

In  the  months  preceding  the  World  War  a  young  man 
left  Kansas  to  finish  his  school  training  in  a  German 
university.  He  had  grown  up  in  the  freedom  that  is 
characteristic  of  life  in  the  Middle  West,  had  been 
trained  in  a  home  and  a  church  where  war,  all  war,  is 
accounted  a  sinful  thing.  His  ideals  were  as  far  re- 
moved from  those  of  Prussia  as  they  might  well  be,  so 
when  he  found  himself  in  a  class  room  of  the  University 
of  Leipsic  he  was,  indeed,  in  a  foreign  land. 

Then  came  the  fateful  days  of  1914.  The  flag  of  the 
Empire  was  everywhere,  the  bands  were  playing,  his  com- 
rades had  left  their  places  in  the  university  to  fall  in 
line  at  the  barracks,  even  the  gray-haired  and  spectacled 
professors  were  volunteering  for  some  kind  of  war  work. 
"  Der  Tag "  for  which  Germany  had  been  waiting  and 
training  had  come  and  found  her  ready  to  the  last 
button. 

In  this  storm  of  national  feeling  the  boy  from  Kansas 
was  caught  and  carried  away  to  the  recruiting  office  to 
enroll  himself  as  a  soldier  of  the  Empire.  On  account 
of  some  errors  in  the  paper  which  he  presented  it  was 
returned  to  him  for  correction.  That  night  in  his  room 
he  sat  with  the  paper  before  him  which  would  renounce 
his  home  training,  his  country,  his  ideals,  all  that  his  life 
had  meant,  to  become  a  German  citizen.  Then  he  re- 
membered that  the  flag  for  which  he  proposed  to  fight 
was  not  his  flag,  that  the  cause  was  not  his  cause,  and 
making  his  way  through  the  lines  he  came  home  to  Kan- 
sas with  the  paper  in  his  pocket  as  evidence  of  the  ab- 
sorbing power  of  the  German  national  mind.    When  this 


THE  NATURE  OF  THE  NATION-STATE  27 

was  possible  with  a  Western  boy,  one  may  understand 
what  it  meant  for  a  German  citizen. 

I  am  drawing  my  illustrations  mainly  from  Germany 
because  in  no  other  land  has  the  mind  of  the  nation  been 
so  well  organized,  so  definitely  directed,  nowhere  else 
has  the  emotional  ideal  had  such  an  overwhelming  in- 
fluence on  the  life  of  a  whole  people.  Such  has  been 
the  unifying  effect  of  this  ideal  that  even  the  demoraliz- 
ing effects  of  defeat  in  the  great  war  have  not  resulted 
in  breaking  down  the  union  of  States  which  was  formed 
by  force  two  generations  ago. 

So  the  great  centripetal  force  in  Germany  to-day  is 
the  German  mind.  And  the  experiences  of  the  war  have 
brought  out  vividly  the  fact  of  the  English  mind  and  the 
French  mind  and  the  Italian  mind. 

It  is  the  possession  of  the  national  mind  that  deter- 
mines where  citizenship  belongs.  We  have  thousands  of 
men  who  are  helping  to  elect  our  officials  who  are  still 
thinking  Irish,  or  English,  or  German.  What  we  ask  of 
the  foreigner  who  lands  at  Castle  Garden  is  that  he  shall 
become  an  American  citizen. 

What  does  that  mean?  Only  that  he  shall  go  through 
certain  legal  formalities  before  a  judge  of  the  courts? 
We  have  certain  elements  of  the  population,  which  are 
obsessed  with  the  idea  of  patriotism,  that  would  line  up 
everybody,  especially  school  teachers,  and  have  them 
swear  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  as  a 
panacea  for  all  foreign  ideas  that  may  be  abroad  in  the 
land.  Not  dissimilar  was  the  spirit  of  Clovis,  who 
marched  ten  thousand  Germans  into  the  river  and  bap- 
tized them  at  once  into  the  Christian  faith. 

The  fact  is  that  men  and  women  become  American 


28  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

citizens  as  they  get  the  American  mind.  They  belong 
to  United  States  when  they  think  United  States.  It  is 
not  the  acceptance  of  a  legal  formula  that  changes  a  for- 
eigner into  an  American,  but  a  change  of  mind.  So  we 
say  to  the  foreigner  who  comes  to  our  shores,  "  Let  this 
mind  be  in  you  which  was  in  Washington  and  Lincoln 
and  Roosevelt,"  and  when  he  gets  the  new  mind  he  is  an 
American.     This  is  what  Americanization  means. 

So  America  to  them  is  not  New  York,  or  Chicago,  but 
it  is  the  national  mind  within  them.  One  said  to  Maurice, 
"  The  Kingdom  of  God  is  within  you."  He  answered, 
"  Yes !  so  is  the  kingdom  of  England."  England  for  the 
Englishman  is  not  something  outside  of  him.  It  is  some- 
thing inside.  It  is  something  that  he  carries  with  him 
wherever  he  goes.  That  is  the  reason  why  the  Anzacs 
lie  so  thick  at  Gallipoli  and  in  Flanders.  Real  citizenship 
is,  not  determined  by  residence  but  by  an  attitude  of 
mind. 

Patriotism. 

This  lays  down  for  us  the  basis  of  patriotism.  It 
means  loyalty  to  the  national  mind  within  us.  It  is  de- 
votion to  the  national  side  of  ourselves.  It  is  as  natural 
for  the  real  citizen  to  love  his  country  as  to  love  himself. 
So  when  we  sing 

"  I  love  thy  rocks  and  rills, 
Thy  woods  and  templed  hills," 

we  are  dealing  with  incidentals,  not  fundamentals.  It 
has  been  said  that  wherever  a  Frenchman  goes  he  car- 
ries Paris  in  his  heart.     That  is  where  each  man  carries 


THE  NATURE  OF  THE  NATION-STATE  29 

his  country  and  he  never  realizes  how  large  a  place  it 
has  in  his  heart  till  he  sees  his  flag  ten  thousand  miles 
from  home. 

So  patriotism  is  not  under  control  of  the  police.  It  is 
not  created  in  any  degree  by  calling  the  stranger  within 
the  gates,  "  chink,"  or  "  greaser,"  or  "  dago."  A  man 
going  along  the  street  in  one  of  our  cities  bought  two 
apples  and  gave  one  to  a  workman  whom  he  passed, 
putting  his  arm  around  him  as  he  did  so  and  saying,  "  I 
love  you."  That  is  teaching  patriotism,  for  it  is  a  step 
in  human  brotherhood. 

This  is  not  at  all  the  patriotism  taught  by  the  Chicago 
Tribune  when  it  carries  at  the  head  of  its  columns  the 
saying  of  Stephen  Decatur,  "  My  country,  may  she  al- 
ways be  right,  but  right,  or  wrong,  my  country."  That 
is  the  sort  of  patriotism  which  covers  injustice  and  fraud. 
Carl  Schurz  puts  it  better,  "  My  country,  when  she  is 
right  to  keep  her  right,  when  she  is  wrong  to  set  her 
right." 

Nationality  is  the  National  Mind. 

The  last  century,  especially  the  last  few  years,  have 
been  marked  by  the  rise  of  new  nationalities  which  are 
asking,  and  demanding  a  place  among  the  older  nations 
of  the  world.    Some  of  these  may  be  like 

"  Voices  crying  in  the  night 
And  having  nothing  but  a  cry," 

Ibut  for  the  present  they  are  needing  attention.  What 
we  seem  to  need  is  a  definition  of  nationality.  Evidently 
it  is  not  decided  by  religious  preference,  for  Protestant 


30  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

fought  Protestant,  and  Catholic  fought  Catholic,  and  Mo- 
hammedan fought  Mohammedan  in  the  recent  war  with 
all  the  viciousness  that  might  be  demanded  by  a  drill 
sergeant.  Nor  was  it  race,  for  Pole  fought  Pole  and 
Jew  fought  Jew.  Nor  was  it  residence,  for  neighbor 
fought  neighbor.  Indeed,  it  seems  as  if  all  the  old 
rules  have  been  destroyed  by  the  needed  exceptions  to 
them.  Language  seems  to  have  had  more  to  do  with 
lining  men  up  in  a  common  cause  than  any  of  the  things 
mentioned,  for  language  is  the  expression  of  mind  and  a 
common  language  is  likely  to  mean  a  common  mind. 

The  thing  that  does  seem  most  decisive  is  the  emo- 
tional ideal.  It  is  true  that  the  Balkan  peoples  seem  to 
be  dividing  frequently  on  race  lines  and  that  may  be 
decisive  in  many  cases  of  the  ideal  which  calls  out  the 
deepest  feelings.  Nationality,  like  love,  is  a  passion  and 
it  seems  often  as  difficult  to  explain  one  as  the  other. 
But  no  one  doubts  the  existence,  or  the  power,  of  either. 

"  What  is  it  makes  a  nation  ? 

Is  it  States,  or  ships,  or  guns? 
Or  is  it  that  great  common  heart 

That  beats  in  all  her  sons? 
That  deeper  faith,  that  truer  faith, 

That  trust  of  one  in  all, 
Which  sets  the  goal  for  every  soul 

That  hears  his  country's  call." 

When  our  soldiers  went  across  the  Atlantic  they  were  in 
England  and  in  France  and  in  Belgium,  but  however  they 
were  treated  these  places  were  not  home.  Nothing  could 
have  made  these  places  home  except  a  change  of  mind. 
The  people  spoke  a  foreign  language,  but  more  than  that 
they  thought  foreign  things.    All  of  our  men  would  have 


THE  NATURE  OF  THE  NATION-STATE  31 

agreed  with  the  colored  soldier  who  while  coming  up 
New  York  Bay  past  the  Statue  of  Liberty  took  a  long 
look  at  the  uplifted  arm  and  said,  "  Put  down  you'  light, 
honey,  I's  home." 

Making  Up  the  National  Mind. 

Some  have  objected  to  the  idea  of  the  national  mind 
on  the  ground  of  the  divergent  and  contradictory  ideas 
that  are  in  it.  But  this  does  not  seem  to  be  a  fatal  ob- 
jection since  even  the  reader  of  these  pages  may  have 
divergent  and  contradictory  ideas  in  his  mind.  In  fact, 
he  has  no  little  difficulty  in  deciding  between  these  con- 
flicting views.  So  if  conflicting  views  in  the  national 
mind  would  be  evidence  of  two  or  more  personalities 
the  same  may  be  said  of  individuals.  It  would  seem  that 
if  a  man  had  only  one  idea,  it  might  get  lonesome  and 
stray  away  looking  for  company  and  forget  to  come  back. 

The  North  and  the  South  had  conflicting  ideas  about 
human  slavery  and  they  had  them  for  a  long  time.  But 
they  do  not  have  them  now.  If  they  had  two  minds 
then,  what  became  of  them?  What  was  really  taking 
place  during  the  slavery  contest  was  the  attempt  to  make 
up  the  national  mind.  It  takes  longer  to  make  up  the 
national  mind  than  the  individual  mind,  but  the  method 
is  the  same.  Facts  were  presented  by  platform  and 
pulpit  and  press,  feelings  were  stirred,  and  finally  the 
will  of  the  people  was  written  into  the  law  of  the  land. 
Nobody  has  questioned  for  a  half  century  that  slavery 
is  dead,  nobody  wants  it  back. 

Then  we  spent  nearly  as  long  making  up  the  national 
mind  about  the  liquor  traffic.  Again  we  had  the  gather- 
ing of  the  evidence,  the  appeal  to  the  emotions  and  finally 


31  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

the  action  of  the  national  will  that  the  business  had 
reached  that  stage  of  decomposition  that  it  should  be 
buried.  So  as  the  verdict  on  slavery  was  written  into  the 
fundamental  law  as  the  final  judgment  of  the  nation,  we 
have  the  Eighteenth  Amendment,  which  is  the  verdict  of 
the  nation  on  alcohol.  As  in  all  such  cases  there  are 
individuals  and  organizations  which  seek  to  nullify  the 
national  judgment,  but  what  is  written  into  experience 
and  then  into  law  abides.  This  is  the  process  that  is 
continually  at  work  in  the  national  mind,  for  great  issues 
have  no  regard  for  the  peace  of  nations.  A  score  of 
questions  are  demanding  settlement  and  zealous  advo- 
cates are  asking  for  the  first  place  on  the  national  docket. 

Processes  of  the  National  Mind. 

Our  psychologists  tell  us,  what  we  might  guess  with- 
out the  telling,  that  our  mental  operations  are  classified 
as  intellectual,  emotional  and  volitional,  or,  to  put  it  an- 
other way,  we  have  intellect,  feeling,  and  will.  And  as 
far  as  we  can  see  every  mind  will  have  these  forms  of 
expression.  May  we  say  the  same  of  the  national  mind? 
Is  there  a  national  intelligence,  and  a  national  emotion, 
and  a  national  will?  That  would  seem  to  follow  from 
the  things  we  have  been  saying  of  the  national  mind,  but 
may  be  worthy  of  investigation. 

Is  There  National  Intelligence? 

Is  there  a  way  of  thinking  that  is  distinctly  English, 
and  another  that  is  distinctly  French,  and  another  as 
distinctly  German?  Is  it  not  evidence  of  that  when  na- 
tions, and  citizens  of  different  nations,  are  not  able  to 
understand  each  other?    That  failure  to  understand  is 


THE  NATURE  OF  THE  NATION-STATE  33 

the  fruitful  cause  of  individual  quarrels  and  of  interna- 
tional war. 

One  realizes  this  when  he  tries  to  learn  a  foreign  lan- 
guage. It  is  not  simply  getting  the  foreign  words  in  his 
memory,  but  to  make  these  words  express  what  is  in  mind. 
In  fact  a  complete  translation  of  one  language  into  an- 
other is  not  possible  because  the  things  expressed  are  not 
the  same.  Not  till  one  can  think  in  the  foreign  language 
can  he  speak,  or  write  it  out  perfectly. 

An  Englishman  who  recently  lectured  in  this  country 
said  that  a  chief  reason  why  the  American  and  English 
soldiers  did  not  get  on  well  together  was  because  they 
did  not  understand  each  other's  jokes.  He  insisted  that 
if  men  can  laugh  together  over  their  troubles  it  will 
lighten  the  load.  There  is  no  greater  test  of  our  knowl- 
edge of  a  language  than  our  ability  to  appreciate  its  jokes. 
Most  of  us  have  been  puzzled  with  the  English  and  the 
German  joke  as  also  they  have  been  with  ours.  Most 
of  us  will  admit  that  the  Greek  and  Latin  jokes  that  we 
came  across  in  our  college  texts  did  not  break  up  a  recita- 
tion. As  I  recall  the  Homeric  joke  it  was  interesting 
chiefly  because  its  frequent  appearance  made  easier  read- 
ing for  a  few  lines. 

The  reason  why  the  German  universities  arranged  for 
the  exchange  of  professors  with  our  schools,  the  reason 
why  Cecil  Rhodes  arranged  for  the  scholarships  for 
American  students,  was  to  get  the  respective  countries 
to  understand  each  other.  Both  plans  were  aiming  at  an 
alliance  between  the  countries  based  on  that  most  en- 
during foundation,  a  common  intelligence. 

If  the  nations  are  to  develop  their  common  interests 
into  a  lasting  bond  of  friendship,  it  must  begin  with  the 


34  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

knowledge  that  we  think  differently  and  must  take  this; 
difference  into  account  in  international  dealings.  Even 
when  we  use  the  same  language  as  the  Englishman  we 
often  mean  something  that  he  does  not.  When  an  Eng- 
lish boy  speaks  of  "  doing  his  bit,"  it  is  of  what  he  owes 
to  himself  as  a  man;  when  an  American  boy  uses  the 
words  he  means  what  he  owes  to  his  country. 

Is  There  National  Emotion? 

What  I  would  like  to  make  plain  is  that  not  only  is 
there  national  feeling  but  that  it  is  the  dominant  social 
force.  This  has  been  most  evident  in  great  religious 
movements,  when  the  emotion  of  the  ideal  has  lifted  a 
nation  to  heights  of  sacrifice  and  attainment  that  other- 
wise would  have  been  impossible.  In  such  cases  nations 
have  shown  themselves  invincible  against  foes  within,  or 
without.  Witness  the  struggle  of  Holland  against  Spain 
in  the  sixteenth  century,  or  the  rise  of  Puritanism  in 
England  a  little  later. 

Perhaps  no  other  nation  has  ever  used  the  conception 
of  the  emotional  ideal  more  consciously  than  has  Ger- 
many. Mazzini  had  already  urged  on  his  countrymen 
that  the  ideas  of  duty  and  sacrifice  furnished  the  influ- 
ence, not  only  of  the  advancement  of  the  nation,  but  of 
the  world.  Rights,  he  urged,  had  been  the  moving  cause 
of  separating  classes  and  nation  and  that  if  the  demand- 
ing of  rights  could  be  succeeded  by  the  teaching  of  duties 
to  the  children  of  the  nation  and  the  world  it  would 
cement  them  together  in  a  common  life. 

It  was  Germany  that  adopted  these  ideas  as  a  dominant 
feature  in  her  educational  system.  From  the  teachers 
of  the  common  schools,  the  secondary  schools,  and  the 


THE  NATURE  OF  THE  NATION-STATE  35 

professors  of  the  universities,  came  the  steady  urge  upon 
the  children  and  the  youth  of  Germany  to  make  duty  to 
the  fatherland  and  sacrifice  for  her  interests  the  chief 
aim  of  life.  The  history  of  the  land,  its  victories  and  its 
achievements  were  the  daily  thought  of  the  pupils  in  the 
grades,  her  songs  were  on  every  lip.  The  wearisome 
barrack  life,  the  grind  of  daily  toil,  was  but  the  due  of 
each  citizen  to  the  national  ideal.  Any  one  who  recalls 
the  speeches  of  the  Kaiser  will  recognize  this  note  run- 
ning through  them  all. 

The  result  in  Germany  is  evidence  of  what  may  be  ac- 
complished in  any  land  where  the  whole  educational  sys- 
tem is  organized  to  propagate  a  certain  ideal  in  the  mind 
of  the  nation.  In  Germany  it  meant  the  dominance  of 
German  Kultur  not  only  in  her  own  borders,  but  through 
the  world.  But  if  the  ideal  had  meant  a  passion  for  the 
conquests  of  peace  instead  of  war,  the  emotional  ideal 
would  have  been  equally  strong,  only  the  outcome  would 
not  have  been  that  of  1918. 

Germany  has  taught  the  world  a  lesson  by  which  other 
nations  should  profit.  As  she  was  changed  in  little  more 
than  a  generation,  so  may  others  be  changed  according 
to  the  ideal  which  lays  hold  of  the  emotions  of  the  peo- 
ple. A  people  which  would  take  the  ideal  of  peace  and 
righteousness  as  the  center  of  its  educational  system,  of 
its  press,  of  its  government,  that  would  keep  continually 
before  the  mind  of  the  children  and  youth  the  duty  of 
sacrifice  for  this  ideal  would  organize  the  national  forces 
for  world  conquest,  as  certainly  as  did  Germany,  only 
for  the  uplift  of  the  world  instead  of  its  downfall. 

Germany  has  taught  the  world  the  method.  When  a 
few  men  under  the  haystack  at  Williams  proposed  the 


36  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

conquest  of  the  world  for  Christ  it  looked  like  the  im- 
possible; by  applying  the  German  method  it  would  be 
practical.  She  has  shown  how  national  institutions  and 
a  national  state  may  be  changed  in  a  generation.  All 
that  is  needed  is  the  setting  of  the  sum  of  the  educational 
forces  of  a  nation  to  a  given  task,  and  teaching  as  a  life 
duty  to  the  citizenship  the  work  of  sacrifice  to  gain  the 
end.  Class  feeling,  race  feeling,  and  national  feeling 
have  been  used  for  destructive  ends,  but  they  may  be  the 
means  of  lifting  a  nation  to  a  degree  of  heroic  service 
for  righteousness  such  as  the  world  has  not  yet  seen. 

Is  There  a  National  Will? 

It  does  not  seem  that  any  argument  is  required  at  this 
point  in  order  to  justify  an  affirmative  answer.  "  The 
will  of  the  people  "  has  long  been  a  common  statement 
in  popular  speech  and  is  universally  accepted  as  a  fact  in 
political  theory  and  practice.  The  American  Republic 
wills  the  kind  of  government  she  will  have,  the  policy 
which  she  will  follow,  the  individuals  who  shall  guide 
her  affairs.  The  modern  question  is  not  whether  the 
nation  has  a  will,  but  whether  this  will  has  any  limita- 
tions. Often  the  teaching  runs  that  not  only  does  the 
national  will  decide  the  national  policy,  but  as*  well  fur- 
nishes a  final  standard  for  the  conscience  of  the  citizen. 
Whenever  military  ideas  and  policy  dominate  in  govern- 
ment policy,  there  is  swift  penalty  for  the  one  who  dares 
think  otherwise  than  as  the  public  will  decrees.  Our  own 
country  was  not  without  abundant  illustration  of  this 
fact  during  and  following  the  months  of  war.  Lieb- 
knecht  was  given  four  years  in  prison  for  opposing  the 
German  government,  while  for  lesser  offences  some  in 


THE  NATURE  OF  THE  NATION-STATE  37 

United  States  were  given  ten  years.  So  one  who  re- 
calls recent  events  will  be  in  no  doubt  of  the  fact  and 
the  potency  of  the  national  will. 

The  idea  that  government  exists  merely  by  the  con- 
sent of  the  governed  is  an  instance  of  the  survival  of  an 
old  belief  after  it  has  ceased  to  have  the  semblance  of 
fact.  It  is  a  relic  of  the  ancient  notion  that  government 
was  in  the  nature  of  a  contract  between  the  rulers  and 
the  ruled.  It  saw  in  the  people  and  the  government  in- 
dependent parties,  who  dealt  each  with  the  other  on  terms 
of  equality.  But  government  is  not  an  independent  party 
in  the  case.  It  is  the  agent  of  the  nation,  is  set  up  and 
directed  by  the  nation. 

The  will  of  the  nation  is  completed  in  the  national  acts. 
The  intelligence  chooses  the  policy,  the  national  feeling 
furnishes  motor  power,  the  will  unites  the  national  mind 
in  the  completed  act. 

The  Nation  is  a  Psychological  Organism. 

The  sociological  writers  have  dealt  with  this  subject 
so  exclusively  from  the  biological  point  of  view  and  given 
such  a  biological  bias  to  the  terms  used  that  one  uses  the 
word  organism  with  some  hesitation.  But  since  the 
term  is  needed  here  it  seems  altogether  a  pity  to  sur- 
render it  to  the  materialists  without,  at  least,  a  protest. 

So  we  shall  understand  at  the  outset  that  we  do  not 
accept  the  biological  conception  of  the  nation,  which  holds 
that  citizens  are  related  to  the  nation  as  the  cells  to  the 
body.  The  biological  idea  of  society  has  some  value  as 
an  illustration,  but  has  little  relation,  even  a  poor  rela- 
tion, to  the  fact.  The  most  tyrannical  social  order  that 
the  world  has  ever  known  still  allowed  a  freedom  to  the 


38  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

Individual  citizen,  which  the  biological  view  makes  im- 
possible. The  military  clique  in  Germany,  and  in  Wash- 
ington, go  on  the  assumption  that  the  people  have  no 
more  liberty  than  the  cells  of  the  body  and  that  it  is  the 
business  of  the  citizen  to  stand  attention. 

But  army  life,  like  war,  is  abnormal.  Its  mechanical 
order  is  unsocial.  Men  are  not  bound  together  by  the 
drill  sergeant,  but  by  the  mental  attitude  which  they  take 
to  the  commonwealth.  Professor  Ramsey  Muir  has  told 
us,  "  Nationality  is  an  elusive  idea,  difficult  to  define. 
Its  essence  is  a  sentiment,  and  in  the  last  resort  we  can 
only  say  that  a  nation  is  a  nation  because  its  members 
passionately  and  unanimously  believe  it  to  be  so." 

So  the  social  organism  is  not  a  biological,  but  a  psy- 
chological concept.  Its  citizens,  like  those  of  the  King- 
dom of  God,  do  not  lose  freedom  through  sharing  in  the 
national  life,  indeed  it  is  through  being  born  into  the 
social  order  that  they  attain  to  the  reality  of  life.  It 
is  not  claimed  here  that  the  nation  realizes  unity  as  does 
the  Kingdom  of  God,  or  that  the  citizen  realizes  indi- 
viduality as  far  as  is  possible  to  the  citizen  of  the  King- 
dom, but  what  is  meant  is  that  both  the  nation  and  the 
Kingdom  are  psychological  organisms. 

As  was  previously  suggested  the  national  organism  is 
only  in  the  formative  stage.  "For  the  national  mind," 
says  Fouillee,  "  is  a  continuous  growth ;  it  is  not  em- 
bodied in  a  temporary  succession  of  individuals,  but  in  a 
continuously  developing  organism."  Only  when  the  na- 
tion gets  the  Spirit  of  the  Kingdom  will  it  fully  realize 
its  nature.  On  its  way  to  this  completeness  it  has  been 
said  that  each  nation  must  pass  through  its  Red  Sea,  as 
did  Israel  on  its  way  to  national  life,  a  suggestion  that 


THE  NATURE  OF  THE  NATION-STATE  39 

only  through  suffering  may  the  common  mind,  which 
constitutes  a  nation,  be  attained.  "  Society,"  says  Fouil- 
lee,  "  is  an  organism  which  exists  because  it  has  been 
thought  and  willed,  it  is  an  organism  born  of  an  idea." 

But  the  question  may  still  remain  as  to  whether  the 
nation  is  really  organic  in  its  nature.  Mackenzie  gives  to 
us  the  following  definition  of  an  organism :  "  An  organ- 
ism is  a  whole  whose  parts  are  intrinsically  related  to  it, 
which  grows  from  within,  and  which  has  an  end  suited 
to  its  nature."  Does  this  definition  seem  to  apply  to 
what  we  have  been  calling  the  national  mind?  To  an- 
swer this  question  we  may  use  the  three  tests  given  by 
Mackenzie  to  social  phenomena, 

1.    Are  individual  citizens  intrinsically  related  to  the 
nation? 

Are  they  so  related  that  the  nation  could  not  ex- 
ist without  the  citizens,  or  the  citizens  in  any  real  way 
without  the  nation  ?  Do  the  citizens  make  the  nation  and 
the  nation  the  citizens  ?  The  Greek  word  for  the  isolated, 
unrelated,  man  is  our  word  idiot,  since  according  to  the 
Greek  idea,  it  is  only  in  his  relationships  that  man  really 
comes  to  life.  Indeed  we  are  all  so  dependent  on  our 
associations  that  solitary  confinement  is  the  most  severe 
of  punishments.  A  philosopher  like  Thoreau  may  take 
comfort  in  his  seclusion  at  Walden  Pond,  but  most  men 
would  prefer  to  "live  in  a  house  by  the  side  of  the 
road." 

Any  one  who  tries  to  change  the  course  of  a  life  will 
be  impressed  with  the  fact  of  intrinsic  relationships.  He 
finds  his  man  among  evil  companions  and  he  replaces 
them  with  good;  the  bad  literature  which  he  reads  is  ex- 


4©  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

changed  for  that  which  is  healthful;  the  man  is  given  3 
fit  occupation  to  engage  his  attention ;  then  all  the  friend- 
ship that  one  can  give  is  lavished  on  him.  And  what  one 
learns  when  all  this  has  been  done  is  that  only  divine 
power  can  change  a  life,  as  Paul's  life  was  changed,  and 
set  it  going  in  a  new  way.  If  only  a  new  birth  can 
change  a  life,  it  seems  evident  that  there  are  vital  rela- 
tionships that  hold  it  in  the  course  it  has  been  following. 
Harold  Begbie  has  furnished  abundant  evidence  of  the 
need  for  the  supernatural  to  change  a  life. 

The  fact  seems  to  be  that  the  citizen  and  the  com- 
munity are  each  essential  to  the  other  and  that  each  in- 
fluences the  other  in  proportion  to  the  relative  strength  of 
character.  Our  truly  great  men  proved  their  greatness 
by  moulding  their  environment  instead  of  being  moulded 
by  it.  The  nation  would  not  be  what  it  is  if  Washington 
and  Lincoln  and  Roosevelt  and  Wilson  had  not  lived 
their  lives  in  it.  But  even  they  were  its  citizens  and  not 
the  less  that  some  of  them  were  citizens  of  the  world. 
Hampden  and  Pym  could  not  have  been  without  Puritan 
England  and  England's  life  would  not  have  had  all  its 
virtues  without  them. 

2.    Does  the  Nation  Grow  from  Within? 

Referring  to  Alice  in  Wonderland  by  way  of  illus- 
tration, we  may  say  that  "  ships  and  shoes  and  sealing- 
wax  "  do  not  grow  from  within,  while  "  cabbages  and 
kings"  do.  Therefore  the  latter  are  organic  and  the 
former  are  not.  No  one  can  tie  leaves  on  the  outside 
of  a  cabbage  and  deceive  even  the  wayfarer  into  the  be- 
lief that  the  result  is  a  part  of  the  plant.  The  cabbage 
does  not  grow  that  way,  neither  does  the  king.     But  if 


THE  NATURE  OF  THE  NATION-STATE  41 

one  will  give  the  plant  soil  and  moisture  and  sunshine  it 
will  grow  in  the  only  way  possible  for  a  cabbage,  from 
the  inside. 

Also  there  is  a  lesson  here  for  statesmen  which  they 
may  ponder  with  profit.  Nations  grow  from  the  inside 
too.  England  and  United  States  have  tried  the  experi- 
ment of  tying  foreign  elements  on  the  outside  with  mili- 
tary and  naval  bandages,  but  the  latest  reports  indicate 
that  the  East  Indian  and  Egyptian  have  not  become  Eng- 
lish, nor  the  Filipino  an  American.  This  does  not  mean 
that  the  attachment  was  not  a  good  thing  for  the  colonies, 
but  it  is  plain  that  the  grafting  has  been  a  failure.  In 
fact  police  powers  seldom  make  a  lasting  connection. 
Napoleon  said  that  you  could  do  almost  anything  with 
bayonets  except  sit  on  them,  so  the  position  of  colonial 
governments  is  not  comfortable. 

One  may  graft  a  piece  of  skin  on  the  body,  but  only 
when  the  blood  of  the  body  circulates  through  it  does 
it  become  a  part  of  the  body.  So  we  can  not  hitch  for- 
eign elements  to  us  by  any  outward  force  as  a  perma- 
nent condition.  Military  domination  does  not  give  the 
foreigner  our  ideals  and  hopes  and  aspirations.  We  can 
assimilate  the  foreigner,  not  by  police  powers,  not  by  our 
industries,  not  by  our  schools.  He  may  have  the  disci- 
pline of  all  of  these  and  remain  foreign  to  us.  But  the 
human  sympathy,  which  has  been  touched  with  the 
divine,  so  that  it  holds  him  a  brother  man,  will  break 
down  the  barriers  of  race  and  class. 

3.    Does  the  Nation  Have  an  End  Suited  to  Its  Nature? 

This  seems  evident  to  those  who  have  given  attention 
to  national  characteristics.    Nations  are  as  diverse  in 


42  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

this  respect  as  individuals.  Each  has  its  own  type  of 
mind,  its  own  method  of  life,  and  its  own  destiny  to 
achieve.  England,  France,  Germany,  United  States,  are 
as  unlike  as  the  citizens  of  which  they  are  composed, 
each  has  its  part  to  play  in  the  great  world  drama  of  the 
nations.  Some  of  these  may  fail  to  fulfil  the  purpose  of 
their  creator  and  will  be  put  aside  for  more  worthy  suc- 
cessors, but  this  very  disaster,  which  has  come  to  many 
nations  of  the  past,  is  in  itself  a  proof  of  an  end  which 
each  nation  is  to  serve. 

Now  we  have  considered  the  three  tests  in  Mackenzie's 
definition.  Does  not  it  appear  that  United  States  fulfils 
the  conditions  of  the  definition  of  an  organism?  Our 
Republic  is  a  whole  whose  parts  are  intrinsically  related 
to  it,  which  grows  from  within  and  which  has  a  destiny 
peculiarly  its  own. 

National  Responsibility. 

One  of  the  plain  conclusions  from  the  reasoning  of 
this  lecture  is  the  fact  of  the  moral  responsibility  of  the 
nation.  If  the  nation  thinks  and  feels  and  wills,  and  I 
do  not  think  that  one  may  explain  the  phenomena  of  cur- 
rent history  on  any  other  supposition,  then  the  nation  is 
responsible  for  its  acts  as  is  the  individual,  is  subject  to 
the  same  influences  for  good  and  ill.  In  fact  this  be- 
lief is  so  universally  accepted  that  it  is  in  our  common 
speech.  One  does  not  need  to  explain  to  the  man  on  the 
street  that  Germany  was  responsible  for  the  invasion  of 
Belgium,  that  Belgium  was  responsible  for  the  atrocities 
of  the  Congo  Valley,  that  England  was  responsible  for 
the  Boer  War  and  the  United  States  for  the  Mexican 
War.    No  one  questions  these  conclusions  and  they  are 


THE  NATURE  OF  THE  NATION-STATE  43 

justified  only  if  the  nation  has  a  mind  to  reason  and  a 
will  to  choose.  America  is  in  good  degree  responsible 
for  the  defeat  of  Germany  and  if  all  plans  fail  to  get  a 
national  agreement  for  the  establishment  of  world  peace 
America  will  in  large  measure  be  responsible  for  that 
failure. 

Why  have  nations  failed  to  meet  their  responsibilities  ? 
It  is  not  so  much  because  of  enemies  without  as  foes 
within.  The  old  histories  told  us  that  Rome  fell  because 
of  the  invasion  of  the  Goths,  but  we  know  that  Rome 
was  rotten  at  the  heart  and  went  down  through  its  cor- 
ruption. Idleness  and  vice  destroyed  the  virtues  of  the 
Roman  citizen  and  sapped  the  life  of  the  nation.  Poetry 
said,  "  Sarmatia  fell  unwept,  without  a  crime,"  but  his- 
tory tells  us  enough  of  the  tears  and  the  crimes.  Na- 
tions, like  men,  must  reap  as  they  sow. 


Mackenzie's  Introduction  to  Social  Philosophy ;  Essays  in  Phil- 
osophical Criticism,  Seth  and  Haldane ;  The  Group  Mind,  Pro- 
fessor Mc  Doug  all  ;  La  Science  Sociale  Contemporaine ,  Fouillee  ; 
Psychologie  du  Peuple  Francais,  Fouillee  ;  Social  Psychology ;  Ross. 


SOCIAL  INSTITUTIONS. 

It  is  in  the  very  nature  of  spirit  to  be  active,  therefore 
the  State  must  have  agencies  through  which  to  act. 
To  some  extent  the  social  life  expresses  itself  through 
individual  members  of  the  State,  but  its  larger  expression 
is  through  its  institutions. 

The  individual  enlarges  his  life  as  he  increases  his 
intercourse  with  his  fellows  and  with  the  world  about 
him.  Take  away  his  eyes  and  ears,  his  hands  and  feet, 
and  his  life  can  not  be  enlarged,  even  if  it  be  sustained. 
His  life  is  conditioned  on  activity.  Applying  the  analogy 
of  the  individual  to  the  State,  it  seems  clear  that  the  latter 
stands  in  equal  need  of  channels  through  which  the 
life  may  go  out  into  action.  It  is  to  the  institutional 
forms  of  the  social  life  that  the  attention  is  here  asked. 

Even  in  the  earliest  and  the  simplest  periods  of  the 
social  life,  some  institutions  were  found  necessary  to 
its  enlargement,  and  even  its  existence.  From  the  first 
the  Family  had  a  place.  Into  it  the  individual  was 
born  and  through  the  various  Family  functions,  as  then 
practiced,  the  State  in  embryo  did  the  main  part  of  its 
work.  But  as  nomadic  life  was  succeeded  by  the  settled 
conditions  of  agriculture,  and  this  coupled  with  manufac- 
tures and  commerce,  the  social  institutions  multiplied 
to  allow  expression  to  the  growing  complexity  of  life. 
Each  new  situation  demands  a  new  institution,  or  the 

44 


SOCIAL  INSTITUTIONS  45 

remodeling  of  an  old  one.    The  rise  and  growth  of  these 
institutions  furnish  the  material  of  social  history. 

The  Family. 

The  Family  most  fully  meets  the  primary  social  needs. 
The  patriarchal  Family,  which  seems  to  have  been  the 
prevailing  form  in  early  times,  suggests,  in  the  functions 
which  it  performed,  many  of  the  later  institutions  which 
arose  through  social  division  of  labor.  Government  is 
suggested  in  the  position  which  Abraham  held,  especially 
when  we  find  him  calling  together  a  small  army  out 
of  his  immediate  followers  to  fight  with  the  Eastern 
invaders.  Within  his  limited  domain,  and  among  those 
who  were  his  kin  by  blood,  or  the  fiction  of  adoption, 
he  ruled  as  a  king.    The  will  of  the  father  was  supreme. 

The  Family  contains  the  germ  of  the  school.  The 
most  rapid  development  of  mind  takes  place  before 
school  age  is  reached  and  the  bent  of  interest  has  been 
largely  decided  before  the  pupil  enters  the  classroom. 
The  teacher  comes  in  to  supplement  the  work  of  the 
father  and  the  mother,  having  the  possibility  of  enlarging 
the  view  of  the  child,  seldom  of  changing  the  stand- 
point from  which  its  world  is  seen.  The  prejudices  of 
the  home  become  those  of  the  pupil  and  the  man.  The 
home  life  makes,  or  mars,  the  pupil  of  the  common  school 
and  the  scholar  of  the  higher  grades. 

It  is  in  the  Family  that  the  child  gains  his  religious 
foundations.  Whether,  or  not,  religious  instruction  is 
consciously  given  to  the  child,  it  goes  out  into  life 
equipped  with  a  theology  and  a  code  of  ethics.     What 


&  SOCIAL  ETHICS. 

the  Church  can  affect  in  the  later  life  depends  much 
upon  the  conscious,  or  unconscious,  teaching  by  the 
fireside.  If  the  Bible  is  made  the  commonplace  book 
for  reference  and  story,  if  the  catechism  is  made  the 
recreation  in  which  all  share,  not  the  task  imposed  upon 
the  child  as  a  punishment,  there  is  laid  a  theological 
basis,  a  foundation  of  principle  on  which  to  build  a 
solid  life  structure. 

There  is  also  seen  in  the  Family  the  division  of  labor 
which  makes  the  factory  system  the  economic  method 
of  industry.  In  the  home  that  is  wisely  guided  each 
person  has  his  duties,  on  the  right  doing  of  which  the 
welfare  of  the  Family  depends.  Thus  is  early  begun 
the  training  in  industrial  efficiency  and  the  more  impor- 
tant training  in  the  sense  of  responsibility  for  the  welfare 
of  others.  The  duties  need  not  be  arduous,  should  not 
be  irksome,  but  it  is  necessary  that  they  should  be 
recognized  as  duties  if  the  child  is  to  be  trained  for 
social  service.  It  is  where  this  sense  of  other  selfishness 
is  not  gained  in  the  home  that  the  kindergarten  has  its 
place  in  doing  the  work  which  is  neglected  in  the  Family. 

The  importance  of  the  Family  is  doubly  realized  by 
those  who  have  tried  to  deal  with  the  homeless  class, 
which  is  always  a  factor  in  the  community.  If  a  Family 
can  be  found  to  adopt  the  outcast  the  case  is  simplified, 
but  in  the  greater  number  of  instances  this  can  not  be 
done.  It  is  to  meet  this  social  need  that  the  orphanage 
is  established  to  take  the  place  of  the  Family  relation- 
ship. Yet  how  imperfectly  this  substitution  can  be  made 
is  known  by  those  who  trace  the  later  life  of  the  child 


SOCIAL  INSTITUTIONS  47 

of  the  orphan's  home.  A  clergyman  who  had  spent 
many  years  in  public  institutions  said  that  he  had  often 
followed  the  child  from  the  orphans'  home,  through 
the  reformatory,  the  penitentiary,  and  the  prison.  He 
said,  as  many  others  say,  that  good  citizens  are  seldom 
made  in  the  orphanage,  yet  society  has  devised  no  other 
institution  that  can  take  its  place.  This  emphasizes  the 
fact  that  each  social  institution  has  its  special  function 
that  must  be  imperfectly  performed  by  any  other.  In 
particular  must  the  Family  be  guarded  from  every  influ- 
ence which  diminishes  its   social  service. 

Government. 

The  Government  is  the  social  institution  through  which 
the  State  expresses  its  will  for  the  control  of  individuals 
and  other  institutions.  The  earliest  form  of  social  con- 
trol was  exercised  by  the  head  of  the  household,  but 
when  the  nomadic  life  was  succeeded  by  the  settled 
condition,  the  social  control  occupied  too  wide  a  range 
of  actions  to  be  administered  by  the  father.  From  the 
earliest  institution  of  Government  as  a  separate  social 
function  it  has  persisted,  though  at  times  so  inefficient 
as  to  have  little  value.  This  was  the  case  in  the  Middle 
Ages  when  the  collapse  of  the  Roman  authority  left  only 
the  shadow  of  imperial  control  over  the  districts  which 
it  had  ruled.  In  this  and  similar  cases  the  administration 
reverted  to  individual  hands. 

When  a  freeman  had  a  quarrel  with  his  neighbor, 
since  there  was  no  convenient  magistrate  to  whom  appeal 
might  be  made,  even  if  it  had  not  been  disgraceful  to 


48  SOCIAL  ETHICS. 

propose  such  peaceable  means  of  settlement,  he  fought 
the  issue  out  with  clubs,  if  he  was  a  commoner,  with 
lances  if  a  knight.  Now  two  things  are  clear :  that  under 
such  conditions  good  order  could  not  be  maintained, 
and  that  there  would  be  a  waste  of  social  energy.  Almost 
any  kind  of  efficient  rule  is  preferable  to  the  economic 
waste  of  time  and  energy  when  each  individual  has  to  be 
both  magistrate  and  policeman.  When  one  set  of  men 
is  given  the  work  of  legislation,  another  the  function 
of  interpretation  of  the  law  to  meet  the  special  cases 
presented,  yet  another  given  the  function  of  execution, 
or  even  when  these  functions  are  centralized  in  a  single 
class,  the  bulk  of  the  citizens  may  devote  their  strength 
to  other  employments,  with  great  gain  to  the  social 
economy.  When  the  workman  builded  the  wall  of  Jeru- 
salem, as  runs  the  record,  with  the  sword  in  one  hand 
and  the  trowel  in  the  other,  the  result  in  stonework  would 
not  be  large. 

This  illustrates  the  fact  that  the  social  institution  acts 
as  a  conservator  of  social  forces,  through  the  division  of 
labor  which  it  affords.  By  giving  each  group  of  men 
a  special  duty,  it  gives  them  the  opportunity  of  becoming 
specialists  in  that  work  and  so  giving  better  service. 
It  also  sets  free  other  men  for  other  service.  When 
every  twentieth  man  is  in  the  Government,  as  is  said 
to  be  the  case  in  France,  and  dependent  on  the  Govern- 
ment for  his  support,  it  means  a  great  social  waste.  In 
far  larger  measure  is  there  social  waste  when  nearly 
the  whole  body  of  citizens  of  a  certain  age  is  set  to 
defending  the   fatherland   against   imaginary   invasions. 


SOCIAL  INSTITUTIONS  49 

In  civilized  countries  the  army  should  have  only  police 
duty  and  if  justice  is  followed  in  the  administration  of 
Government,  police  force  can  be  reduced  to  a  minimum. 
The  large  standing  army  is  a  proof  of  unsocial  conditions. 

The  Church. 

As  the  main  purpose  in  this  connection  is  to  show 
that  the  social  institution  comes  into  being  in  response 
to  a  social  need,  it  will  not  be  necessary  to  treat  each 
at  length.  The  Church  finds  a  necessary  place  because 
the  social  spirit,  the  State,  has  a  religious  character 
which  demands  institutional  expression.  This  does  not 
mean  that  the  religious  idea  finds  outlet  through  the 
Church  alone,  for  being  an  element  of  the  social  spirit 
religion  must  have  some  place  in  all  institutions  which 
meet  any  legitimate  social  need.  But  it  is  through  the 
Church,  the  institution  which  performs  the  ecclesiastical 
duties  of  the  social  spirit,  that  religion  finds  its  chief 
expression.  The  religious  factor  will  be  found  in  Gov- 
ernment, in  Family,  and  in  the  factory;  but  as  the 
economic  is  the  chief  factor  in  business,  so  is  religion 
in  the  Church.  No  single  institution  has  a  monopoly  of 
any  function ;  it  has  some  one  function  in  greater  degree 
than  any  other  institution.  Even  the  Church  must  deal 
somewhat  in  finance.  Each  legitimate  social  institution 
has  a  special  social  duty  of  its  own,  yet  in  each,  since 
they  arise  from  the  social  spirit,  are  found  subordinated 
to  the  chief  function,  the  suggestion  of  the  functions 
of  other  institutions. 

This  religious  factor  which  expresses  itself  most  con- 


50  SOCIAL  ETHICS. 

cretely  through  the  Church,  and  in  general  way  through 
all  social  institutions,  comes  into  the  social  life  through 
its  contact  with  the  divine  life.  The  complete  filling 
of  the  social  spirit  with  the  divine  spirit  would  mean 
the  transformation  of  all  social  institutions  and  the 
realization  of  the  Kingdom  of  God.  When  Paul,  in 
explaining  the  kinship  of  the  social  members,  reminded 
his  readers  that  each  had  his  own  particular  gift  and 
consequent  duty  and  that  through  all  worked  the  same 
spirit,  he  was  teaching  what  I  wish  to  make  plain  here. 
It  is  in  this  relationship  that  social  institutions  are  to 
be  understood.  All  are  expressions  of  the  same  social 
spirit,  the  State. 

It  is  evident  that  the  man  who  argues  that  religion 
has  no  place  in  business  and  politics  has  a  faulty  psy- 
chology. No  human  spirit  is  devoid  of  religion,  even 
though  it  may  be  a  feeble  influence.  If  there  were  no 
religious  element  in  the  State,  there  could  be  none  in 
the  Church,  since  the  latter  is  an  expression  of  the 
former.  If  there  is  religion  in  the  Church,  it  must  exist 
in  some  measure  in  all  other  institutions,  since  all  are 
related.  We  do  not  go  to  a  railroad  company  for  re- 
ligion, yet  it  must  be  present  there.  All  are  members 
one  of  the  other. 

The  older  social  philosophy  which  proposed  to  split 
society  into  isolated  fragments,  even,  as  Kant  taught,  to 
divide  the  individual  into  what  he  regarded  as  the 
hopeless  contradictories  of  reason  and  feeling,  is  not 
supported  by  the  facts  of  individual  and  social  life.  Life 
is  a  unity  and  any  philosophy  of  life  which  does  not 


SOCIAL  INSTITUTIONS  Si 

find  unity  as  its  basis,  needs  revision.  This  does  not 
mean  that  there  are  not  conflicts  in  life  between  opposing 
principles.  Such  contests  are  ever  present,  but  there 
is  a  life  which  includes  both  parties  in  the  struggle.  Nor 
does  the  fact  of  social  unity  preclude  a  higher  moral 
standard  in  one  institution  than  in  another.  The  Church 
sets  a  higher  moral  standard  than  the  trust  company, 
since  the  former  is  made  up  of  the  best  men  of  the 
community,  while  the  latter  demands  no  other  qualifi- 
cation than  business  shrewdness;  yet  while  both  insti- 
tutions have  the  same  leaders  as  is  frequently  the  case, 
we  should  not  expect  the  principles  on  which  the  two 
institutions  are  administered  to  differ  essentially.  In 
such  case  the  Church  might  be  expected  to  have  some- 
thing of  the  character  of  a  social  club,  with  some  insur- 
ance features  included.  Politics  can  not  be  depraved 
and  the  Church  pure  in  any  community.  The  idea  that 
the  Church  can  be  isolated  from  the  life  of  the  time  was 
not  realized  even  by  the  monks  in  the  Thebaid,  much 
less  in  modern  times.  The  Church  can  not  be  on  the 
road  to  heaven  and  the  corporation  on  the  way  to  hades, 
when  the  same  people  are  in  both  institutions.  If  sel- 
fishness rules  in  the  market  it  can  not  be  barred  from 
the  fireside.  What  is  present  in  marked  degree  in  one 
phase  of  life  will  be  present  in  some  degree  in  all  others. 
Some  idea  of  the  way  in  which  a  social  institution 
originates,  and  of  its  relation  to  the  life  of  the  commu- 
nity, may  be  gotten  by  recalling  the  incidents  connected 
with  the  settlement  of  Oklahoma  City  when  the  Indian 
lands  were  opened  to  the  "  rush."     In  the  morning  the 


52  SOCIAL  ETHICS. 

site  was  uninhabited  prairie  and  before  night  it  had  a 
large  population  with  an  organized  Government.  The 
immediate  need  for  this  institution  is  evident  when  we 
recall  the  situation.  The  settlers  were  largely  made  up 
of  the  less  tractable  class,  who  were  ready  to  enforce 
their  arguments  with  the  revolver,  so  that  when  several 
squatters  laid  claim  to  the  same  desirable  lot  on  the 
prospective  main  street,  there  were  liable  to  be  some 
unlawful  methods  in  the  proving  of  the  claim.  In  order 
that  the  various  claims  might  be  submitted  to  the  courts 
for  settlement,  it  was  of  the  first  importance  that  a 
form  of  Government  should  be  established  with  authority 
to  keep  order  among  the  sadly  mixed  crowd.  Under  such 
conditions  the  organization  of  Government  will  be  among 
the  first  actions  of  the  community. 

On  account  of  the  rapid  transfers  of  real  estate  and 
other  salable  property,  some  institution  was  needed  to 
conduct  the  financial  operations  and  a  bank  was  estab- 
lished. Now  it  is  doubtless  true  that  both  the  Govern- 
ment and  the  bank  had  been  planned  in  advance  by  a 
few  individuals,  but  these  individuals  only  anticipated 
the  social  need.  They  did  not  create  it.  The  social  life 
found  expression  through  the  institutions  named.  This 
leads  to  a  conclusion,  which  the  State  must  come  more 
thoroughly  to  understand,  that  a  social  institution,  offi- 
cered by  individuals,  must  still  minister  to  the  social 
welfare.  They  are  at  least  semi-public  officials  and  public 
office  is  a  public  trust. 

If  the  administration  is  to  be  left  in  individual  hands 
it  must  be  on  condition  that  these  individuals  recognize 


SOCIAL  INSTITUTIONS  53 

their  obligation  for  social  service.  There  is  no  more 
reason,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  why  the  bankers  of 
Oklahoma  City  should  run  their  business  with  sole  regard 
to  dividends  than  that  the  officials  of  Government  should 
do  the  like.  Here  lies  the  demonstration  of  the  prin- 
ciple previously  stated  that  the  factor  which  is  dominant 
in  one  institution  will  inevitably  present  itself  in  others. 
If  the  railroad  company,  a  social  institution,  is  to  be 
run  simply  for  the  holders  of  its  stock,  why  should 
Government  not  be  run  for  the  holders  of  office  ?  That 
it  is  so  run  in  many  instances  is  evidence  of  the  fact 
that  corruption  will  not  be  barred  from  politics  until 
all  social  institutions  manifest  a  new  spirit  of  social 
service.  If  the  Sugar  Trust  may  with  impunity  disre- 
gard social  interests  in  the  making  of  its  schedules, 
may  not  Congress  do  the  same  in  the  framing  of  law? 
As  the  population  of  the  town  becomes  acquainted  with 
its  religious  conceptions  and  need,  there  is  a  demand 
for  the  organization  of  a  Church.  The  first  organization 
will  be  of  that  creed  which  expresses  the  religious  crav- 
ings of  the  larger  number  of  the  inhabitants,  that  is,  the 
social  needs  will  be  satisfied  in  the  order  of  the  intensity 
of  the  demand.  In  some  districts  of  the  West,  and  of 
the  East  as  well,  there  are  large  populations  centered 
in  mining  camps  where  there  is  no  demand  for  the 
Church.  This  does  not  necessarily  mean  that  the  persons 
gathered  in  such  localities  have  no  religious  interests, 
but  it  means  that  these  religious  interests  do  not  bulk 
large  enough  to  demand  expression  through  an  ecclesi- 
astical institution.     At  the  same  time  they  will  foster 


54  SOCIAL  ETHICS, 

institutions  which  some  other  neighborhood  would  not 
tolerate.  In  each  community  are  found  the  interests 
that  are  in  others,  but  in  some  the  interest  is  not  great 
enough  to  demand  any  form  of  organized  expression. 
When  an  agent  is  sent  by  the  Church  into  a  community 
where  there  is  no  ecclesiastical  organization,  it  is  with 
the  purpose  of  awakening  the  religious  interest  to  such 
a  degree  that  it  will  require  an  institutional  expression. 

The  town  will  not  have  added  many  months  to  its 
life  before  there  comes  a  demand  for  schools.  If  the 
people  are  far  scattered,  as  often  on  the  prairie,  the 
instruction  must  for  a  time  be  given  in  the  Family,  but 
the  increase  of  population  enables  this  social  demand 
for  a  school  to  be  satisfied.  At  first  the  building  will 
be  crude  and  often  both  teaching  and  teacher  of  a  like 
order,  but  with  the  possibility  of  better  things,  a  change 
ensues.  The  shed  gives  way  to  a  commodious  classroom, 
the  high  school  is  added  and  the  institution  develops  in 
accordance  with  the  latest  models.  Institutions  are  an 
expression  of  the  social  spirit  and  they  develop  or  decay 
in  correspondence  with  the  spirit  which  works  through 
them. 

While  it  is  the  social  spirit  which  gives  rise  and  char- 
acter to  the  institution,  there  is  a  reciprocal  relation  be- 
tween the  institution  and  the  life  behind  it.  Radical 
and  permanent  reforms  involve  changes  in  the  social 
spirit,  since  such  changes  affect  all  institutions.  But  a 
change  in  the  institution  also  has  its  reflex  influence 
upon  the  life.  A  change  in  school  methods  which  gives 
new  interest  to  the  pupils,  affects  the  whole  life  of  the 


SOCIAL  INSTITUTIONS  55 

community.  An  improvement  in  the  mail  service  results 
in  bringing  social  elements  that  had  previously  been 
isolated  into  communication.  A  better  street-car  service 
relieves  the  congestion  in  the  crowded  centers  of  popu- 
lation, making  life  more  tolerable  for  the  poor.  Every- 
one of  these  changes  has  its  effect  on  the  life  of  the 
people.  Thus  reforms  are  brought  about  directly  by 
changing  the  social  spirit;  indirectly  by  changing  insti- 
tutions. 

This  conclusion  shows  the  part  which  the  Spirit  of 
Jesus  Christ  must  have  in  all  deep  and  lasting  social 
transformation.  It  is  as  the  divine  Spirit  is  projected 
into  the  State  that  all  institutions  will  gain  new  impulses 
toward  better  social  service.  .While  the  social  institution 
has  its  inspiration  from  the  social  spirit,  this,  in  turn, 
gains  its  aspiration  from  God. 


CHURCH    AND    STATE 

Whenever  it  is  proposed  to  place  any  religious  fea- 
ture, such  as  a  Sabbath  law,  on  the  statute  book,  a  cry  of 
alarm  is  raised  that  the  proposition  means  a  union  of 
Church  and  State ;  yet  if  the  alarmist  was  questioned 
as  to  what  he  meant  by  Church  and  State  respectively, 
his  sorrows  would  increase.  But  his  fear  is  not  altogether 
causeless.  Something  was  realized  in  the  past  which 
has  been  called  a  union  of  Church  and  State  from  which 
came  very  undesirable  results,  so  that  if  the  charge 
of  such  union  is  fastened  upon  any  movement,  it  has 
the  effect  of  original  sin,  since  the  movement  is  con- 
demned even  though  actual  transgressions  are  not  proved. 
It  is  necessary  in  any  discussion  to  define  the  basis  on 
which  it  shall  be  conducted,  and  specially  in  this  case 
where  there  is  such  variety  of  opinion  in  regard  to  the 
meaning  of  the  terms. 

The  definition  of  the  State  which  is  followed  here,  is 
stated  in  the  first  chapter.  It  will,  therefore,  be  suffi- 
cient to  say  that  the  State  is  the  social  spirit.  The 
State,  or  social  spirit,  being  subjective,  must  find  expres- 
sion and  perform  its  functions  through  objective  insti- 
tutions such  as  the  nature  of  the  State  requires.  In 
the  chapter  on  Social  Institutions,  the  necessity  for  their 
existence  is  discussed,  also  the  fact  of  their  necessary 
correspondence  with  the  life  which  they  express.    It  will 

s6 


Church  and  state  57 

scarcely  be  questioned  that  the  Church  is  one  of  the 
most  important  of  these  social  institutions.  The  social 
spirit  is  religious  by  its  nature,  since  every  race  that  is 
known  has  some  form  of  religious  worship.  Those  who 
would  prove  the  assertion  that  religion  was  foisted  on 
men  by  priests  for  their  own  selfish  interests,  would  need 
to  have  the  priesthood  precede  the  existence  of  man  on 
the  earth,  as  he  has  always  shown  his  religious  inclina- 
tions. 

The  Church  exists  as  the  most  concrete  expression 
of  the  religious  nature  of  man.  The  time  when  the 
Church  appears  in  human  history  is  not  a  point  which 
is  of  importance  in  this  chapter.  It  is  sufficient  for 
our  purpose  to  notice  that  it  has  been  one  of  the  great 
social  facts  with  which  every  student  of  social  forces 
has  been  called  to  deal.  In  speaking  of  the  Church  as 
the  institution  which  expresses  the  religious  nature  of 
men,  it  is  not  meant  to  imply  that  this  nature  does  not 
express  itself  through  other  institutions.  Since  the  social 
life  is  organic,  each  part  is  related  to  every  other.  Thus 
the  religious  factor,  while  the  dominant  characteristic 
of  the  Church,  is  present  in  every  phase  of  the  social 
life  and,  therefore,  in  all  institutions.  This  is  illustrated 
in  the  life  of  the  individual.  As  a  Christian,  he  will 
make  the  Church  his  chief  agency  for  putting  his  religious 
beliefs  into  practice,  but  as  a  Christian  he  will  give 
evidence  of  his  religion  in  his  shop  and  his  store.  If  his 
religion  is  of  the  kind  that  only  serves  for  Church 
purposes,  its  quality  may  be  open  to  some  question. 
So  is  it  with  religion  in  the  social  life;    it  permeates 


58  SOCIAL  ETHICS. 

the  whole  life  and,  therefore,  all  social  institutions. 

Relation  of  Church  and  State. 

If  the  definitions  offered  be  accepted,  the  relation  of 
the  Church  and  the  State  are  easily  understood.  The 
Church  is  the  concrete  expression  of  the  religious  phase 
of  the  State.  Whether  the  State  is  definitely  Christian, 
or  Mohammedan,  or  Hindoo,  the  Church  is  the  expres- 
sion of  the  dominant  religious  idea  in  the  State.  Accord- 
ing to  this  view,  we  could  not  consider  the  question  of 
a  union  of  Church  and  State,  nor,  by  correct  definition, 
has  such  a  thing  existed,  unless  in  the  ancient  societies. 
The  fact  is  apparent  that  the  reputed  union  of  Church 
and  State,  which  is  so  often  and  so  justly  deprecated, 
involves  a  different  conception  of  the  State  than  that 
given  in  these  pages.  It  is  based  on  the  old,  discarded 
idea  that  the  Government  is  the  State.  Of  a  union 
between  the  political  government  of  the  State  and  the 
administration  of  the  Church,  history,  medieval  and  mod- 
ern, furnishes  many  instances ;  indeed,  most  of  the  coun- 
tries of  the  world  are  trying  the  experiment  of  uniting 
the  political  with  the  ecclesiastical  functions  of  society. 
In  Germany,  the  Government  has  taken  the  Lutheran 
Church  into  alliance  with  it,  in  France  the  combination 
is  made  with  the  Catholic,  and  in  England  with  the 
Episcopal  Church.  This  union  was  brought  about  in 
each  case  by  the  action  of  the  political  institution,  the 
Government,  and  is  subject  to  modification  by  it  at 
any  time.  The  Episcopal  Church  in  England  might 
be  disestablished  by  an  act  of  Parliament.    These  two 


CHURCH  AND  STATE  59 

institutions,  the  Church  and  the  Government  of  Eng- 
land, are  so  far  united  that  the  political  and  ecclesiastical 
functions  are  blended,  the  Government  appointing  the 
officials  and  enacting  the  creed  of  the  Church.  The 
Thirty-nine  Articles  which  make  up  the  Anglican  creed 
were  passed  as  any  other  measure  in  Parliament. 

Admitting  the  view  that  the  Government  is  the  State 
it  is  permissible  to  speak  of  this  relation  being  a  union 
of  Church  and  State,  but  not  otherwise.  By  whatever 
name  it  is  known,  it  is  an  unwarranted  uniting  of  func- 
tions that  ought  to  be  allowed  to  work  independently. 
It  is  in  independence  that  political  and  ecclesiastical 
institutions  will  best  work  out  the  social  end.  Co-opera- 
tion there  should  be  in  the  uplifting  of  the  people,  but 
this  means  that  each  should  act  within  its  own  sphere. 

Disastrous  Results  from  the  Union  of  Functions. 

No  matter  whether,  as  in  the  Middle  Ages,  the  eccle- 
siastical dominated  the  political,  or,  as  in  the  present 
day,  the  political  imposes  its  requirements  upon  the 
ecclesiastical,  injury  is  done  to  the  State.  Whatever 
lessens  the  real  freedom  of  the  individual,  works  social 
damage,  and  all  the  persecutions  which  paralyzed  the 
Spanish  people  and  blighted  France,  in  and  since  the 
Reformation,  came  from  the  uniting  of  these  social 
functions.  Henry  Eighth  of  England,  because  of  his 
assumption  of  headship  in  the  Church,  decreed  death 
to  the  Catholic  who  denied  this  place  to  the  king,  and 
also  to  the  Protestant  who  denied  transubstantiation. 
The  Covenanters  of  Scotland  were  hunted  as  the  quarry 


Go  SOCIAL  ETHICS. 

on  their  native  hills,  because  they  claimed  that  Jesus 
Christ,  and  not  some  Stuart  king,  was  head  of  the 
Church.  Neither  Parliament  nor  Congress  should  dic- 
tate the  creed  of  the  Church. 

Why  Political  and  Ecclesiastical  Functions  Have  Been 
United. 

If  this  confusion  of  social  functions,  which  were  in- 
tended to  co-operate,  but  not  to  combine,  had  been  re- 
alized in  but  a  single  country,  or  in  a  special  period,  it 
might  be  passed  with  little  notice,  but  since  the  in- 
stances are  so  numerous  an  investigation  should  reveal 
some  common  cause.  Priest,  or  king,  must  have  some 
end  to  gain. 

Previous  to  the  coming  of  Christ,  and  outside  of  the 
Hebrew  Commonwealth,  there  was  scarcely  any  distinc- 
tion between  the  Church  and  the  Government.  The 
Twelve  Tables  at  Rome  dealt,  without  distinction,  with 
ecclesiastical  and  political  matters,  and  the  pontiffs,  who 
aided  in  developing  the  Civil  Law  from  these  Tables, 
were  not  lawyers  but  priests.  Each  Government  official 
was  an  ecclesiastic  as  well.  In  Greece,  even  after  the 
king  had  lost  his  political  power,  he  was  retained  in 
office  on  account  of  his  ecclesiastical  duties,  which  only 
one  of  the  royal  line  might  perform. 

The  Roman  consul  on  a  campaign  consulted  the  aus- 
pices, through  which  the  gods  were  thought  to  reveal 
their  will,  as  if  he  had  been  a  priest.  Under  such  con- 
ditions, a  separation  of  the  political  and  ecclesiastical  was 
not  considered. 


CHURCH  AND  STATE  61 

But  with  the  coming  in  of  Christianity,  the  situation 
changed.  Something  now  appeared  in  the  State,  which 
had  not  been  known  before.  It  was  a  conflict  of  re- 
ligions, between  which  religions  the  Government  had 
to  choose.  This  came  to  an  issue  in  the  time  of  Con- 
stantine,  when  the  pagan  faith  had  lost  its  power  to 
bind  Society  together,  and  there  was  needed  some  new 
agency  to  support  the  weakened  Government.  To  those 
who  believe  Constantine  to  have  been  a  devout  Christian, 
no  other  reason  than  this  need  be  advanced  for  his 
making  Christianity  the  Government  religion,  for  cer- 
tainly it  was  not  the  religion  of  the  Roman  State;  but 
historians  are  inclined  to  view  his  action  as  having  the 
political  end  of  gaining  for  the  support  of  the  throne 
that  compact  body  of  Christians,  numbering  probably 
less  than  one-tenth  the  population  of  the  Empire,  whose 
enthusiasm  more  than  compensated  for  their  lack  of 
numbers.  The  Christian  Church  was  doubtless  the 
strongest  social  organization  of  the  age,  and  the  Em- 
peror wished  to  use  its  fresh  blood  to  vivify  the  flaccid 
veins  of  a  decaying  order.  The  heathen  had  the  weight 
of  numbers,  but  Constantine  judged  wisely  that  the 
faithless  multitude  is  a  weaker  social  force  than  the 
compact  body  of  enthusiastic  believers. 

From  the  standpoint  of  political  expediency  the  es- 
tablishing of  the  Christian  Church  by  law  was  justified, 
but  the  effect  upon  the  Church  of  making  it  popular, 
was  to  bring  into  its  membership  that  class  of  men, 
too  numerous  in  every  age,  who  make  popularity  rather 
than  principle  the  rule  of  life.     Up  to  this  time,  the 


62  SOCIAL  ETHICS. 

members  of  the  Christian  Church  had  come  through 
tribulation,  but  now  membership  was  the  road  to  po- 
litical preferment.  From  this  time  we  may  date  the 
decline  of  morality  in  the  Church,  which  decline  made 
Protestantism  a  necessity  in  the  later  time. 

The  same  motives  which  led  Constantine  in  the  fourth 
century,  actuated  Clovis  in  the  fifth.  By  accepting  Chris- 
tianity and  baptizing  his  army  of  wild  Franks  in  a  body, 
Clovis  won  the  blessing  of  the  Pope  and  the  support 
of  good  Catholics  wherever  his  army  moved.  It  was 
though  the  aid  of  the  Church  that  he  won  his  conquests 
over  the  wide  territory  which  took  the  name  of  the  con- 
querors, and  it  was  through  the  same  means  that  he 
bound  the  conquered  together  in  submission  to  the  Me- 
rovingian line  of  kings.  It  was  with  the  Frank  as  with 
the  Roman.  The  need  of  strengthening  the  Government 
caused  the  institutional  union  of  Church  and  Govern- 
ment. 

During  the  medieval  period  the  rulers  of  the  Hohen- 
staufen  dynasty  waged  a  long  warfare  to  free  Ger- 
many from  the  papal  power,  being  compelled  at  last  to 
make  inglorious  submission  at  Canossa  to  the  Roman 
pontiff.  With  the  single  exception  of  England,  pro- 
tected by  its  insular  position  and  the  stubborn  Norman 
kings,  every  country  of  Western  Europe  made  sub- 
mission to  the  Pope  in  the  eleventh  century.  Now  it 
scarcely  needs  argument,  that  if  the  other  Governments 
of  Europe  had  been  as  secure  as  the  English  kings  they 
would  have  shown  like  independence,  though  even  Eng- 
land had  the  Catholic  as  the  established  religion.   Thus 


CHURCH  AND  STATE  63 

again  it  is  Government  weakness  which  furnishes  the 
explanation  for  the  uniting  of  ecclesiastical  and  political 
functions. 

Nor  is  the  case  different  when  we  recall  more  recent 
historical  incidents. 

When  Henry  Eighth  dethroned  the  Pope  of  Rome,  to 
set  up  the  Pope  of  England  in  the  person  of  the  king,  it 
does  not  require  any  inspiration  to  divine  the  cause. 
The  divinity  which  doth  hedge  about  the  king  when 
he  is  able  to  claim  a  species  of  adoration,  aids  in  binding 
the  people  to  the  throne.  It  was  upon  the  sacredness  of 
the  crown  that  the  Stuarts  depended  to  sustain  them  in 
power,  regardless  of  the  popular  judgment  which  was 
passed  upon  the  injustice  of  their  administration.  Whether 
the  sacredness  which  may  be  thought  to  belong  to  Edward 
Seventh  as  the  head  of  the  Established  Church  gives 
strength  to  the  present  English  Government,  his  subjects 
can  give  the  most  authoritative  answer.  Be  that  as  it 
may,  history  seems  to  bear  out  the  statement  that  the 
weakness  of  Government  has  been  the  cause  of  the  al- 
liance between  the  political  and  the  ecclesiastical  func- 
tions of  the  social  spirit. 

Religion  and  the  State. 

As  has  been  already  stated,  an  established  church  is 
not  to  be  desired ;  indeed,  it  has  worked  no  little  damage 
in  the  past.  But  in  opposing  such  conditions,  some  of 
its  antagonists  have  gone  to  the  opposite,  and  equally 
untenable,  extreme,  in  claiming  that  religion  should  have 
nothing  to  do  with  political  and  business  relations.    It  is 


64  SOCIAL  ETHICS. 

probably  true  that  one  of  these  extremes  is  the  natural 
result  of  the  other,  but  the  wiser  conclusion  lies  on  the 
middle  ground.  If  it  is  true,  as  anthropology  and  the 
Bible  clearly  teach,  that  man  is  religious,  then  religion 
must  find  expression  through  his  whole  life.  It  is  only 
a  question  of  what  the  religion  will  be.  The  State  will 
express  its  religion,  whatever  it  has,  through  its  whole 
institutional  life.  It  is  idle  to  talk  of  excluding  re- 
ligion from  one  sphere  of  the  social  life,  while  retaining 
it  elsewhere.  If  life  were  not  organic,  such  a  conception 
might  be  conceded,  but  in  an  organism  each  part  co- 
operates with  every  other.  Grant  that  the  social  spirit 
is  religious,  and  it  inevitably  follows  that  the  Govern- 
ment, the  expression  of  the  State,  will  be  religious. 

Ecclesiasticism  in  Government  is  to  be  decried,  but  the 
Christian  religion  in  Government  will  enable  it  to  de- 
serve the  devotion  of  the  citizen.  It  is  loose  thinking 
which  fails  to  distinguish  the  Church  from  religion,  an 
institution  from  a  principle.  Putting  the  moral  law  in 
Government  would  not  join  the  Government  with  any 
Church,  because  the  moral  law  is  a  principle.  The  things 
which  can  be  united  belong  to  the  same  sphere,  and 
while  the  principles  of  the  Bible  should  find  expression 
in  governmental  action,  we  could  not  reasonably  speak 
of  uniting  the  Government  with  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount.  On  the  other  hand,  the  strength  which  would 
inure  to  the  Government,  which  takes  as  its  standard  of 
justice  the  Word  of  God,  would  obviate  the  unfortunate 
mingling  of  ecclesiastical  and  political  functions  poou- 
larly  known  as  the  union  of  Church  and  State. 


CHURCH  AND  STATE  65 

There  is  no  surer  method  of  preventing  this  Old  World 
condition  from  being  reproduced  in  the  New  than  in 
making  religion  an  abiding  factor  in  Government.  In 
such  case  the  Government  can  appeal  to  the  conscien- 
tious loyalty  of  the  citizens,  and  not  appeal  in  vain. 
The  Union  of  Church  and  Government. 

Whenever  one  proposes  a  law  to  protect  men  from, 
working  on  the  Sabbath;  whenever  it  is  proposed  to 
legalize  the  reading  of  the  Bible  in  the  schools,  indeed 
almost  any  Christian  reform  meets  with  the  objection 
that  it  is  a  union  of  Church  and  State.  It  is  worth  see- 
ing what  this  frequent  cry  of  "  Wolf !  "  means.  In  order 
to  understand  the  issue  it  is  necessary  to  see  what  the 
term  "  Church "  means  in  this  connection.  We  know 
what  the  Government  means  without  explanation.  There 
are  five  meanings  of  the  word  Church  in  common  use: 

1.  We  speak  of  the  invisible  Church  when  we  mean 
the  redeemed  Society  which  makes  up  the  body  of  Christ. 

2.  The  term  is  used  to  mean  the  whole  body  of  pro- 
fessing Christians. 

3.  The  word  Church  is  used  when  referring  to  a  con- 
gregation of  believers  having  a  stated  place  of  meeting. 

4.  The  term  is  used  in  designating  the  building  in 
which  a  congregation,  or  society,  meets. 

5.  Its  most  frequent  use  is  in  reference  to  a  body  of 
believers  united  by  a  distinctive  creed. 

Now  it  needs  no  argument  to  prove  that  the  union  of 
Church  and  State,  to  use  the  popular  phrase,  does  not 
mean  a  uniting  of  the  Government  with  the  Church  as 
defined  in  any  one  of  the  first  four  ways.     It  is  not  a 


66  SOCIAL  ETHICS. 

union  with  the  body  of  the  redeemed;  it  is  not  a  union 
with  the  whole  body  of  believers  whose  names  appear 
upon  the  records  of  the  Church;  it  is  not  union  with  a 
congregation;  still  less  with  a  building.  There  remains, 
then,  only  the  fifth  use  of  the  word  which  need  be  con- 
sidered in  this  connection.  The  dreaded  union  of  Church 
and  State,  more  correctly  Church  and  Government,  is 
between  a  particular  denomination  and  the  Government. 
But  this  same  conclusion  is  reached  by  another  method. 
When  one  turns  to  Europe  for  illustration  on  this  ques- 
tion, he  finds  the  Government  of  England  united  with 
the  Episcopal  Denomination,  the  Government  of  Germany 
united  with  the  Lutheran  Denomination.  In  neither  of 
these  cases  could  the  word  Church  be  used  in  any  other 
sense. 

Now  the  practical  question  is  reached,  as  to  whether 
there  is  any  reasonable  apprehension  that  a  law  which 
forbade  the  discharge  of  a  workman  for  refusal  to  work 
on  the  Sabbath  would  effect  the  dreaded  union  of  the 
Government  with  the  Presbyterians.  What  denomina- 
tion would  such  legislation  favor? 

Or,  to  vary  the  illustration,  suppose  that  an  amend- 
ment was  placed  in  the  Federal  Constitution  acknowl- 
edging the  authority  of  Jesus  Christ  and  the  supremacy 
of  His  law  in  moral  questions,  would  that  unite  the  Gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States  with  some  denomination? 
If  this  question  is  answered  affirmatively,  what  denom- 
ination would  then  become  the  established  Church? 

Is  it  not  clear  that  the  union  of  the  Church  with  the 
Government,  which  is  here  deprecated,  and  the  making 


CHURCH  AND  STATE  67 

of  the  teachings  of  Christ  the  ethical  standard  of  Gov- 
ernment, which  is  here  advocated,  have  nothing  to  do 
with  each  other?  An  established  Church  does  not  bring 
Christian  principles  into  Government,  though  it  does 
bring  political  methods  into  the  Church.  The  Parlia- 
ments of  England  and  of  Germany  are  under  no  more 
obligation  to  legislate  or  judge  in  accordance  with  Chris- 
tian principles,  than  is  the  Government  of  the  United 
States.  Bringing  Christianity  into  political  action  does 
not  bring  in  the  Church;  establishing  the  Church  does 
not  bring  in  Christianity.  It  would  seem  that  the  popu- 
lar apprehension  in  regard  to  religious  features  in  our 
laws,  is  due  to  a  failure  to  understand  the  history  of 
the  subject  and  the  terms  used. 

The  Government  can  aid  the  Church,  not  by  a  merg- 
ing of  functions,  but  by  co-operation.  Both  rest  on  the 
same  fundamental  constitution,  the  law  of  God;  both 
have  the  same  end,  the  uplifting  of  humanity.  In  re- 
jecting the  union  of  the  Church  with  the  Government,  it 
is  neither  necessary  nor  wise  to  throw  away  religion 
with  it.  In  our  haste  to  throw  out  the  bath-water  it 
is  not  wise  to  cast  away  the  child. 

It  will  bring  this  discussion  to  a  fitting  close  if  we 
are  able  to  make  clear  in  what  a  union  of  Church  and 
Government  consists.  There  are  certain  facts  always 
present  in  such  cases,  and  by  these  familiar  marks  the 
union  may  always  be  known. 

Three  of  these  marks  are  always  present  where  there 
is  a  Church  established : 

1.  The  Church  is  not  independent  of  the  Government 


68  SOCIAL  ETHICS. 

in  legislation.  In  England  the  creed  of  the  Church  is 
enacted  by  Parliament  in  the  same  way  as  any  other 
measure  which  becomes  a  law.  The  Thirty-nine  Articles 
which  compose  the  creed  of  the  Church  of  England  were 
enacted  in  the  time  of  the  Tudors,  and  can  be  changed 
only  by  the  English  Government.  The  Church,  as  such, 
has  no  more  control  over  the  matter  or  form  of  her 
creed  than  over  a  land  law.  Members  of  the  Church 
may  be  in  important  political  positions,  and  thus  bring 
influence  to  bear  in  the  framing  or  amending  of  a  creed, 
but  their  action  is  not  as  members  of  the  Church,  but 
of  the  Government.  During  the  Middle  Ages  the  Gov- 
ernments were  often  compelled  to  submit  their  measures 
to  the  Church  officials  for  approval,  but  in  modern  times 
the  Church  has  the  subordinate  position  in  the  union. 
Whether  the  Church  takes  its  constitution  from  the  Gov- 
ernment, or  the  Government  submits  its  measures  to 
Pope  or  council,  there  is  not  independence  in  legislation. 
2.  There  is  not  independence  in  the  choice  of  officials. 
In  the  time  when  the  papal  power  swayed  the  political 
as  well  as  the  ecclesiastical  destinies  of  Europe,  it  was 
necessary  that  the  Emperor  should  have  the  endorsement 
of  the  Pope  before  he  could  consider  his  throne  secure. 
But  in  recent  times  the  interference  comes  from  the  other 
party  in  the  case.  Instead  of  the  Church  assuming  to 
pass  upon  the  political  candidates,  the  Government  chooses 
the  officials  in  the  Church.  The  Archbishop  of  Canter- 
bury, the  highest  official  in  the  Church  of  England  ex- 
cept the  king,  has  his  place  conferred  upon  him  by  the 
party  which  has  the  majority  in  the  House  of  Commons, 


CHURCH  AND  STATE  69 

acting  through  the  Prime  Minister,  as  truly  as  does  the 
Secretary  for  India. 

Church  officials  are  appointed  by  the  same  power  and 
in  the  same  way  as  the  Government  officials.  If  the 
Prime  Minister  is  High  Church  in  sympathy,  as  is  the 
case  with  Lord  Salisbury,  the  bishops  who  are  appointed 
will,  for  the  most  part,  incline  to  Ritualism.  From  the 
standpoint  of  an  outsider,  it  is  simply  a  matter  of  politics. 
Edward  Seventh  has  as  much  control  in  the  Church  as 
he  has  in  matters  of  political  administration.  The  union 
of  Church  and  Government  has  not  succeeded  in  bring- 
ing religion  into  politics  in  any  degree,  while  it  has 
brought  the  Church  catechism  into  the  schools.  From 
the  facts  which  are  apparent  to  all,  it  is  evident  that 
where  such  conditions  exist  there  is  no  independence  in 
the  choice  of  officials  in  the  Church. 

3.  There  is  not  independent  means  of  support.  In 
America  we  are  accustomed  to  the  practice  of  each  con- 
gregation, provided  it  has  ability,  supporting  its  own 
minister,  while  the  Established  clergyman  draws  his 
salary  from  the  general  taxation.  These  taxes  which 
go  to  the  support  of  the  Church  Establishment  are  col- 
lected from  all  the  people  who  have  taxable  property, 
regardless  of  their  belief.  The  clergyman  is  a  Govern- 
ment official,  and  receives  his  salary  as  such.  The 
Church  may  raise  money  from  its  membership  for  mis- 
sions or  other  work,  if  it  sees  fit,  but  the  clergyman  is 
not  supported  by  his  congregation,  nor  is  he  responsible 
to  it. 

To  sum  up  the  preceding  points,  we  have  a  union  of 


70  SOCIAL  ETHICS. 

Church  and  Government  when  there  is  a  lack  of  inde- 
pendence in  the  framing  of  law,  in  the  choice  of  officials, 
and  in  the  means  of  support.  It  is  equally  true  that 
where  these  conditions  do  not  exist  there  is  not  a  union 
between  the  political  and  the  ecclesiastical  institutions. 
With  this  statement  of  familiar  facts  it  seems  clear 
enough  that  the  putting  of  religious  features  into  Gov- 
ernment law  and  practice,  and  the  other  question  of  the 
union  of  a  certain  denomination  with  the  Government, 
are  entirely  distinct  questions.  The  gaining  of  one  con- 
dition is  not  even  a  step  toward  the  other,  but  rather 
away  from  it.  The  Government  of  England,  with  its 
Church  Establishment,  is  scarcely  nearer  to  Christian 
methods  of  administration,  than  is  the  Government  of  the 
United  States,  which  is  non-religious  by  profession.  It 
would  seem  a  fair  conclusion  from  logic  and  history,  that 
putting  religion  into  the  Government  would  keep  out 
Church  Establishment.  Surely  the  man  who,  when  it  is 
proposed  to  place  some  of  the  teachings  of  Christ  in 
law  for  the  guidance  of  Government,  feels  it  necessary 
to  lift  his  voice  in  warning  against  a  threatened  union 
of  some  denomination  with  the  Government,  is  somewhat 
afflicted  with  mental  astigmatism.  The  simple  question 
which  would  indicate  how  needless  is  his  warning  is 
the  query  as  to  what  denomination  would  be  united  with 
the  Government  by  such  a  measure. 


The  Kingdom  of  God,  Herbert   Stead;    The  State  and  the 
Church,  Prall. 


THE   STATE  AND  THE  INDIVIDUAL 

Ever  since  the  struggle  began  between  the  rulers  and 
the  ruled,  the  philosopher  in  the  sphere  of  theory,  and 
the  statesman  in  the  field  of  legislation  have  beeen  trying 
to  adjust  the  relations  of  the  State  and  the  individual. 
The  philosophers  have  outlined  what  they  thought  to 
be  the  ultimate  social  ideal,  so  that  in  the  philosophy 
of  any  age  we  find  what  the  ablest  thinkers  conceived 
to  be  the  supreme  social  need;  in  the  laws  of  the  time 
is  written  what  the  lawmakers  contrived  to  meet  the 
immediate  social  needs.  It  is  in  this  way  that  the  dreams 
of  the  idealists  later  find  embodiment  in  the  statute  books 
and  social  theories  direct  the  course  of  political  action. 

In  the  first  chapter  an  attempt  was  made  to  define 
the  State  in  psychic  terms,  together  with  some  contrasts 
between  the  definition  offered  and  those  proposed  by 
Mr.  Spencer  and  Thomas  Hobbes.  In  this  connection  a 
brief  statement  is  offered  of  the  views  of  those  who  have 
made  the  largest  contributions  to  social  philosophy,  so 
far  as  their  views  are  concerned  with  the  conservation 
of  social  unity  and  individual  freedom. 

The  Work  of  Moses. 

It  is  in  the  legislation  of  Moses  that  we  find  the  earliest 
recorded  attempt  to  gain  unity  and  freedom.  When  this 
great  leader  was  assigned  his  task,  the  Israelites  were  a 

7i 


72  SOCIAL  ETHICS. 

race  of  slaves,  in  servitude  so  long  that  they  had  lost 
their  love  of  freedom;  with  a  tribal  formation,  but  an 
intertribal  jealousy  which  stood  in  the  way  of  the  re- 
alization of  national  life.  Under  such  conditions  it  is 
evident  that  unity  under  law  is  the  first  necessity,  which 
must  precede  any  lasting  development  of  individual  free- 
dom. Moses  recognized  that  order  is  the  mother  of 
liberty,  not  liberty  the  mother  of  order  as  the  philosophic 
anarchist  teaches.  What  Moses  demanded  from  the  loose 
tribes  which  he  sought  to  fuse  into  a  nation,  was  obedi- 
ence to  law,  the  first  lesson  of  every  people  that  has 
passed  out  of  the  rudest  form  of  social  life. 

To  develop  an  enduring  patriotism  in  this  disorganized 
mass  of  individuals,  trained  to  servility  and  selfishness 
by  centuries  of  slavery,  was  the  task  which  fell  to  this 
Hebrew  statesman,  and  the  evidence  of  his  wonderful 
success  is  the  cohesion  of  this  unique  people  through 
thirty  centuries  of  suffering.  So  low  was  their  concep- 
tion of  the  priceless  gift  of  freedom,  that  they  would 
readily  have  bartered  the  free  life  of  the  desert  for  the 
old  slavery  of  Egypt  with  the  leeks  and  garlic  of  the  Nile. 
One  might  search  far  for  the  negro  in  our  land  who, 
once  a  slave,  would  be  willing  to  go  back  to  the  old  life ; 
yet  this  was  what  the  Hebrews  wished  to  do.  Surely 
it  was  an  inspired  genius  that  could  mould  a  nation  out 
of  such  unlikely  material. 

The  Israelites  began  their  national  life  under  the  guid- 
ance of  Moses.  Mr.  Herbert  Stead  holds  that  the  He- 
brew nation  was  formed  about  three  ideas:  the  idea  of 
God  marked  by  the  name  Jehovah ;  the  demand  that  those 


THE  STATE  AND  THE  INDIVIDUAL  </3 

who  worshiped  Jehovah  should  have  no  other  object 
of  worship,  and  the  personality  of  Moses  himself.  These 
ideas,  accentuated  by  the  central  place  of  worship  in 
the  tabernacle,  and  later  at  the  Temple,  where  they  must 
appear  three  times  a  year,  gave  to  the  Israelite  the  unity 
necessary  to  growth. 

But  while  all  these  aids  to  unity  were  in  evidence, 
individuality  had  consideration.  Slavery  was  abolished 
within  the  racial  group,  and  its  worst  rigors  forbidden 
in  their  dealing  with  aliens.  The  agrarian  laws  were 
so  devised  that  the  family  estate  could  not  be  alienated, 
nor  a  monopoly  in  land  created,  thus  securing  to  the 
Hebrew  peasant  a  place  not  afforded  by  any  other  civil 
code.  Carefully  were  the  provisions  drawn  that  the  rich 
might  not  encroach  upon  the  poor,  the  employer  impose 
upon  his  servant,  the  ruler  upon  the  ruled.  The  freedom 
of  the  individual  in  the  older  Societies  may  be  tested 
by  the  place  given  to  women,  and  in  no  other  community 
of  the  ancient  world  did  women  hold  the  place  accorded 
in  the  Hebrew  State.  While  the  Roman  wife  and  daugh- 
ter were  slaves  of  the  father  of  the  family,  they  had 
legal  rights  among  those  who  practiced  the  Mosaic  code. 

Plato  and  Aristotle. 

From  the  point  of  view  of  individual  liberty,  Plato  and 
his  pupil  Aristotle  may  fairly  be  classed  together,  for 
though  the  pupil  differed  from  the  master  in  method  of 
treatment,  there  was  general  agreement  in  the  substance 
of  teaching.  Both  lived  in  an  age  when  the  prevailing 
social  divisions  by  cities  and  classes  made  them  look  upon 


74  SOCIAL  ETHICS. 

social  unity  as  the  chief  end  to  be  gained,  and  though 
Aristotle  in  particular  sought  to  balance  the  spheres  of 
authority  and  liberty,  it  looks  to  modern  eyes  as  if  he 
unduly  emphasized  the  side  of  law  in  his  theory.  To 
Plato  the  State  was  the  unit,  the  individual  the  fraction; 
while  Aristotle  modified  this  view  in  his  argument,  the 
individual  bulked  small  in  his  conclusions.  In  neither 
philosophy  did  the  State  comprise  more  than  the  city, 
though  there  appears  a  longing  for  a  unity  of  the  Gre- 
cian race.  Plato  was  the  more  theoretical,  Aristotle  the 
more  practical.  The  fundamental  principles  laid  down  by 
the  latter  have  colored  nearly  all  later  social  theories. 

Qualifications  for  Citizenship. 

Both  philosophers  conceived  of  the  community  as 
divided  into  social  classes,  not  by  artificial  arrangements, 
but  by  nature.  The  citizen  class  was  made  up  of  the 
warriors,  the  administrators,  and  the  priests;  the  first 
class  having  the  duty  of  defending  the  State,  which  was 
the  city;  the  second,  of  dealing  with  its  political  affairs; 
the  third,  of  performing  the  religious  rites.  Below  these 
classes  were  the  peasants  and  the  artisans,  who,  while 
not  slaves,  were  not  considered  qualified  for  citizenship. 
They  performed  their  function  by  supporting  the  other 
classes,  who  administered  the  affairs  of  the  State.  It 
was  not  thought  advisable  to  pass  from  one  class  to  an- 
other, since  each  was  born  into  the  station  which  he 
occupied  and  was  not  fitted  for  any  other.  Each  got 
his  status  by  his  birth,  and  it  could  not  be  changed  with- 
out social  damage.    Thus  only  a  small  part  of  the  popu- 


THE  STATE  AND  THE  INDIVIDUAL  75 

lation  could  be   actual  members  of  the   State,  though 
they  were  all  under  its  control. 

The  Idea  of  Slavery. 

The  individual  slave,  as  the  individual  in  any  class, 
got  his  position  by  nature,  and  to  quarrel  with  his  con- 
dition was  to  violate  nature's  laws.  The  slave  did  not 
count  as  a  man,  was  not  an  end  in  himself,  and  accord- 
ing to  the  theory  advanced,  five  of  these  menials  should 
be  assigned  to  each  citizen,  so  that  the  citizen  might  be 
free  from  anxiety  for  his  support,  and  be  enabled  to 
devote  his  whole  time  to  the  social  concerns.  The  slave 
was  but  a  tool  for  productive  purposes.  Nor  was  the 
line  drawn  as  in  modern  times  on  color,  or  race  lines; 
the  debtor,  or  the  captive  in  war,  found  his  place  in 
the  slave  system  of  the  ancient  world. 

The  Greek  philosophers  had  great  regard  for  the  in- 
dividual, going  so  far  as  to  claim  that  the  making  of 
the  most  virtuous  individual  was  the  end  of  the  State. 
But  this  applied  solely  to  the  higher  classes,  not  to  the 
individual  as  such.  The  rank  of  the  man  was  decisive 
of  his  value.  When  one  remembers  how  small  a  fraction 
of  the  inhabitants  of  the  Grecian  city  were  citizens,  he 
realizes  how  little  they  had  of  democratic  institutions. 

About  the  time  of  Aristotle  it  is  estimated  that  in 
Athens,  a  district  smaller  than  our  Rhode  Island,  there 
were  eighty-four  thousand  citizens,  forty  thousand  aliens, 
and  four  hundred  thousand  slaves.  Aristotle  has  left 
the  record  that  there  were  in  the  Island  of  Aegina,  but 
little  larger  than  a  Western  township,  four  hundred  and 


76  SOCIAL  ETHICS. 

seventy  thousand  slaves.  Against  such  conditions  the 
best  men  made  no  protest.  Demosthenes  inherited  slaves 
from  his  father ;  Xenophen  suggests  that  the  State  should 
work  slaves  for  its  own  profit,  while  Cato  the  Censor  — 
esteemed  a  model  husband  and  citizen  —  was  a  veritable 
Legree  in  the  treatment  of  his  human  chattels.  With 
such  facts  in  mind,  it  is  evident  that  Plato  and  Aristotle, 
who  justified  slavery,  put  too  low  an  estimate  on  the 
value  of  individual  freedom.  With  Plato  in  particular, 
who  took  Sparta  as  his  ideal,  the  individual  existed  for 
the  State;  Aristotle,  inclining  to  the  Athenian  views, 
gave  the  individual  a  somewhat  larger  place. 

The  Family  and  Property. 

On  these  matters  Aristotle  differed  with  his  teacher, 
who  held  that  both  should  be  in  common.  Plato  insisted 
that  social  unity  could  not  be  gained  so  long  as  the 
citizens  had  any  other  object  of  devotion  than  the 
State.  So  long  as  the  citizen  had  his  own  wife  and 
children,  and  private  property  was  the  order  of  the  day, 
so  long  would  each  citizen  be  devoted  to  the  interests 
of  his  family,  to  the  detriment  of  the  State.  To  get 
rid  of  this  social  danger,  as  Plato  thought  it  to  be,  he 
proposed  that  families  and  property  should  belong  to 
the  community  instead  of  to  individuals,  thus  destroying 
the  selfish  interests  that  interfered  with  patriotism.  Per- 
haps no  other  phase  of  the  teaching  of  Plato  showed 
more  clearly  his  willingness  to  sacrifice  the  individual 
to  the  community  than  this  radical  communism. 

Aristotle  did  not  go  so  far  as  Plato,  though  he  did 


THE  STATE  AND  THE  INDIVIDUAL  77 

oppose  the  commercialism  which  would  make  gain  the 
chief  end  of  the  citizen.  Indeed,  trade  and  commerce 
were  looked  upon  as  degrading  in  their  influence,  so  that 
such  work  was  left  to  aliens  and  slaves.  It  was  in  order  to 
discourage  trade  that  Sparta  made  her  coin  of  iron,  so 
that  its  bulk  would  make  it  impossible  for  anyone  to 
carry  much  money  with  him.  The  price  of  a  horse 
would  have  furnished  the  animal  with  a  load. 

The  principle  of  the  Greek  philosophers,  to  which 
men  went  back  in  the  reaction  from  the  individual- 
ism of  the  eighteenth  century,  was  that  the  State  is  in 
the  nature  of  man.  The  individual  found  his  life  in 
the  State,  and  outside  of  Society  man  had  no  more  ex- 
istence than  the  hand  when  it  is  cut  off  from  the  body. 
In  this,  Greek  thought  furnished  the  basis  of  modern 
philosophy,  though  it  failed,  on  the  other  hand,  to  see 
that  whatever  restricts  individual  freedom  must  stand 
in  the  way  of  social  unity.  In  their  quest  for  a  firm 
basis  for  authority,  Plato  and  Aristotle  too  much  lost 
sight  of  freedom. 

Rousseau  and  Individualism. 

When  the  Renaissance  took  up  again  the  studies  which 
had  been  interrupted  by  the  irruption  of  the  German 
tribes,  Aristotle  resumed  his  place  as  ruler  in  the  empire 
of  thought.  But  before  the  end  of  the  Middle  Ages 
there  were  many  signs  of  rebellion  against  his  domina- 
tion. Nominalism  came  in  with  the  claim,  as  against 
Realism,  that  the  whole,  instead  of  absorbing  the  part, 
as  Plato  had  been  inclined  to  hold,  was  only  a  name.   It 


78  SOCIAL  ETHICS. 

was  the  part  that  had  reality.  Applying  the  theory  of 
Nominalism  to  the  social  problem,  it  meant  that  the 
Church,  or  the  State,  existed  only  as  a  general  term,  and 
that  the  individual  was  the  only  reality.  The  practical 
aim  of  this  theory  was  to  call  in  question  the  authority 
of  the  Pope  and  the  king,  for  since  Church  and  State 
were  only  names,  they  could  confer  no  supreme  authority 
on  their  rulers.  The  individual  alone  was  real ;  he  alone 
had  authority.  Thus  in  passing  from  the  philosophy  of 
Plato,  to  that  of  individualism,  we  have  changed  the 
emphasis  from  the  State  to  the  individual.  The  former 
held  that  the  State  was  of  supreme  account,  the  indi- 
vidual but  a  fraction;  individualism  insisted  that  the  in- 
dividual was  all,  and  the  State  an  artificial  product  of 
a  contract. 

As  the  purpose  here  is  only  to  show  the  relation  of 
individualism  to  the  unity  of  the  State  and  the  liberty 
of  the  individual,  it  will  not  be  necessary  to  deal  with 
the  various  exponents  of  the  theory  from  Grotius  to  Kant. 
It  is  sufficient  for  our  purpose  to  note  that  the  eighteenth 
century  was  the  period  when  it  dominated  theory  and 
practice,  and  that  Jean  Jacques  Rousseau  was  its  high 
priest.  While  the  idea  itself  was  as  old  as  philosophy,  it 
remained  for  Rousseau  to  put  it  in  such  form  that  it 
became  the  topic  of  the  man  on  the  street,  and  roused 
him  to  a  practical  application  of  the  theory. 

Rousseau  started  from  the  premise  of  Hobbes,  and  of 
the  whole  line  of  individualistic  thinkers,  that  man  first 
lived  in  a  condition  of  nature,  which  preceded  society 
and  law.    Rousseau,  however,  differed  from  Hobbes,  in 


THE  STATE  AND  THE  INDIVIDUAL  79 

that  he  taught  that  this  natural  condition  was  not  so 
very  bad  after  all;  indeed,  it  was  much  better  than  that 
experienced  under  the  Bourbons  of  France.  Men  es- 
caped from  the  state  of  nature,  as  Hobbes  had  said,  by 
an  agreement,  to  which  Rousseau  gave  the  name  by 
which  it  has  since  been  known  —  the  social  contract. 
From  this  point  Hobbes  and  Rousseau  take  radically 
different  roads,  Hobbes  contending  that  any  form  of 
Government  was  better  than  revolution ;  Rousseau  preach- 
ing revolution  against  all  existing  forms  of  Govern- 
ment. It  is,  therefore,  to  Rousseau,  rather  than  to 
Hobbes,  that  we  must  look  for  a  logical  exposition  of 
individualism,  since  it  was  the  whole  aim  of  the  latter 
to  establish  an  absolute  authority. 
Rousseau's  Idea  of  Citizenship. 

The  social  contract  was  a  purely  voluntary  act  on  the 
part  of  the  individuals  who  bound  themselves  by  it;  the 
individual  who  declined  to  take  it,  even  though  he  was 
the  only  dissenter  in  the  community,  remained  outside 
of  the  society  which  was  formed.  Over  such  an  indi- 
vidual the  society  had  no  authority,  since  the  law  of 
nature,  which  each  man  possessed,  made  it  necessary 
that  each  individual  should  consent  to  every  act  which 
concerned  him,  else  it  might  work  injustice  to  him.  Nor 
was  this  idea  set  aside  when  society  was  formed  by  the 
contract.  It  was  still  necessary  that  each  social  act 
should  have  unanimous  consent  before  it  could  be  done. 
Nothing  must  be  allowed  to  encroach  on  the  freedom  of 
the  individual.  Government  must  depend  on  the  free 
consent  of  each  individual  governed. 


8a  SOCIAL  ETHICS. 

How,  then,  would  Rousseau  deal  with  the  minority 
on  political  questions?  How  provide  that  each  man 
would  have  his  will  carried  out,  no  matter  which  way 
the  issue  was  decided? 

His  answer  to  this  difficulty  is  more  ingenious  than 
reasonable,  but  it  goes  to  show  how  persistently  he  de^ 
fended  his  proposition  that  the  individual  should  be  free, 
by  which  he  meant,  without  restraint.  Rousseau  said 
that  when  the  citizen  cast  his  vote  on  any  measure  —  for 
all  measures  must  be  passed  by  the  free  suffrage  of  the 
citizens  —  it  was  not  his  opinion  for,  or  against,  the 
measure  which  he  expressed.  What  he  voiced  was  his 
opinion  in  regard  to  what  the  people  wanted.  For  in- 
stance, if  a  matter  of  taxation  was  the  political  issue,  the 
citizen  would  vote  that  in  his  judgment  the  people  wanted 
the  tax,  or  did  not  want  it.  If  the  majority  of  votes  was 
against  him  it  would  show  that  he  was  mistaken  as  to 
what  the  people  wanted,  not  that  he  did  not  get  what  he 
wanted  himself. 

Rousseau's  Idea  of  Government. 

According  to  Rousseau,  the  Government  had  only  ex- 
ecutive functions,  legislative  and  judicial  powefs  re- 
maining with  the  people.  The  people  in  their  general 
assembly,  which  included  all  citizens,  enacted  and  in- 
terpreted all  laws,  leaving  to  the  Government  which  they 
set  up  the  sole  duty  of  administering  the  laws  prescribed 
and  defined.  Beyond  this  function  Government  might 
not  go  without  infringing  on  individual  freedom,  a  re- 
sult always  possible,  said  Rousseau,  if  the  enactment  and 


THE  STATE  AND  THE  INDIVIDUAL  81 

interpretation  of  laws  was  given  over  to  any  man,  or 
set  of  men. 

When  the  general  assembly  of  the  people  comes  to- 
gether for  business,  the  first  proposition  to  be  considered 
is  whether  the  present  Government  shall  be  continued  in 
office,  and  even  if  this  question  is  not  actually  passed  upon, 
it  is  understood  that  the  existing  administration  is  tacitly 
approved.  Before  this  general  assembly  must  come  all 
measures  which  it  is  desired  to  formulate  in  law.  Rous- 
seau argues  that  the  delegation  of  the  lawmaking  power 
to  Government  officials,  means  the  enslavement  of  the 
citizens,  and  so  he  held  that  Englishmen  are  free  only 
from  the  dissolution  of  one  Parliament  till  the  election 
of  its  successor. 

These  glimpses  of  the  ways  in  which  Rousseau  fol- 
lowed out  his  individualistic  premises,  show  the  emphasis 
which  he  placed  on  freedom  at  the  expense  of  social 
unity.  While  Plato  had  proposed  the  abolition  of  fam- 
ilies, and  private  property,  for  the  sake  of  social  unity, 
sacrificing  individuality  so  far  as  to  call  out  the  criticism 
of  Aristotle  that  Plato  was  like  the  musician  who  sought 
for  harmony  by  playing  on  a  single  string,  Rousseau 
sacrificed  order  for  freedom. 

Rousseau  s  Common  Will. 

If  consistency  is  a  jewel,  it  was  certainly  one  not  worn 
by  Rousseau.  In  his  writings  he  manned  the  climax  of 
one  thought  movement  and  the  initiation  of  another. 
If,  on  the  one  hand,  he  gives  us  the  most  radical  indi- 
vidualism by  setting  forth  the  individual   shorn  of  all 


82  SOCIAL  ETHICS. 

social  institutions,  unrelated  to  his  fellows,  uncuncroIJeu' 
by  any  will  higher  than  his  own ;  on  the  other  hand,  he 
suggests  the  work  of  Hegel  and  the  organic  philosophy, 
by  his  proposition  of  the  common  will,  even  going  to 
the  extreme  of  proposing  an  Established  Church,  to 
whose  creed  each  citizen  must  subscribe  under  penalty 
of  banishment.  After  having  premised  that  each  man 
was  unrelated,  complete  in  himself,  Rousseau  said  that 
the  common  will  belonged  to  all,  being  the  common 
element  in  all  individual  wills.  It  was  found,  he  said, 
by  cutting  out  of  the  wills  of  the  individuals  making 
up  the  community,  that  which  was  peculiar  to  each 
individual,  leaving  only  the  universal  elements.  How 
in  unrelated  individuals  one  may  find  a  universal  will, 
is  a  matter  which  did  not  vex  the  Genevan  philosopher. 
He  stated  the  case  as  he  saw  it,  and  left  the  matter 
of  reconciliation  for  others.  Indeed,  one  is  disposed 
to  look  on  the  contradictions  in  the  philosophy  of  Rous- 
seau, by  which  he  marked  the  transition  from  eighteenth 
to  nineteenth  century  thought,  as  an  evidence  of  his 
strength  of  mind. 

Mr.  Herbert  Spencer  and  the  Biological  Theory. 

In  a  preceding  chapter  a  brief  statement  was  made 
of  Mr.  Spencer's  social  theory,  so  that  it  will  serve  the 
purpose  here  to  consider  how  far  his  plan  provides  for 
social  unity  and  for  individual  freedom. 

As  he  teaches  that  society  has  an  organic  character, 
it  would  seem  that  sufficient  provision  is  made  for  the 
side   of  order,   but   it   is  to  be  remembered  that   Mr. 


THE  STATE  AND  THE  INDIVIDUAL  & 

Spencer's  organism  is  physical,  therefore  is  controlled 
by  physical  laws.  Since  he  has  no  place  for  a  social 
mind,  it  follows  that  there  is  no  natural  function  for 
Government  to  perform.  Mr.  Spencer's  State  has  no 
will,  no  power  of  self-direction.  What  the  State  would 
become,  what  direction  it  would  take,  it  is  not  in  the 
wisdom  of  man  to  predict  or  direct,  and  God  is  at  the 
least  an  absentee  in  his  system.  A  State  such  as  Mr. 
Spencer  conceives,  evolved  by  the  integration  of  matter, 
and  the  dissipation  of  motion,  sustained  and  guided  by 
persistent  force,  without  the  direction  of  will  either  human 
or  divine,  does  not  appear  to  furnish  the  conditions  of 
social  order.  It  reminds  us  rather  of  the  ship  without 
engine  or  rudder,  at  the  mercy  of  the  physical  forces  of 
wind  and  wave. 

Scarcely  better  does  his  theory  fulfill  the  conditions 
necessary  to  individual  freedom.  The  individual,  as 
well  as  the  society,  is  under  the  dominion  of  physical 
law.  Mr.  Spencer  argues  stoutly  for  the  non-interference 
of  the  Government  with  the  individual,  but  on  the  ground 
that  he  is  subject  to  physical  laws  to  which  he  must 
conform.  The  laws  of  heredity  and  environment,  inex- 
orable since  there  is  no  will  to  mediate  their  effects,  hold 
the  individual  in  their  viselike  grip. 

Persistent  force  can  have  no  regard  for  the  being  which 
is  in  its  path;  it  can  only  crush.  It  is  neither  merciful 
nor  merciless,  neither  just  nor  unjust;  it  is  relentless. 
Leave  will  out  of  the  social  problem  and  there  is  noth- 
ing to  which  the  weak  may  appeal  against  the  strong. 
Might  is  right  when  persistent  force  rules  in  the  affairs 


84  SOCIAL  ETHICS. 

of  men.     A  world  without  a  God  of  love  is  a  world 
without  hope. 

The  Psychological  View. 

The  preceding  theories  have  been,  to  a  considerable 
extent,  identified  with  the  name  of  particular  individuals ; 
the  psychological  theory  is  too  recent  and  too  much  the 
accepted  premise  of  modern  philosophy  to  be  identified 
with  any  particular  name.  It  is  the  view  which  is  in 
opposition  to  the  materialism  of  Darwin  and  Spencer 
and  divides  the  field  of  present-day  thought  with  them. 

In  comparison  with  the  theories  of  the  State  which 
have  been  set  forth  in  this  chapter,  the  thought  of  the 
State  as  the  social  spirit,  the  thought  which  the  psycho- 
logical view  is  based  upon,  seems  to  afTord,  in  fuller 
measure  than  the  others,  the  conditions  of  individual 
freedom  and  of  social  unity.  The  mechanical  divisions 
into  social  classes,  as  well  as  the  dissolution  of  families, 
devices  which  seemed  to  Plato  necessary  for  the  securing 
of  social  order,  did  not  leave  sufficient  place  for  the 
development  of  individuality.  Aristotle  partly  followed, 
partly  corrected,  the  one-sided  teachings  of  Plato ;  indeed, 
it  may  fairly  be  said  that  the  psychological  view  coin- 
cides more  nearly  with  Aristotle  than  with  any  other 
of  the  early  social  theorists  except  Moses. 

The  philosophers  of  the  social  contract,  in  trying  to 
correct  the  faults  of  the  Grecian  and  Roman  thinkers, 
took  the  usual  course  of  those  who  oppose  one  extreme 
by  landing  in  the  other,  destroying  society  in  order  to 
save  the  individual.    Yet  while  we  are  compelled  to  pass 


THE  STATE  AND  THE  INDIVIDUAL      v        85 

this  judgment  upon  such  men  as  Rousseau,  justice  de- 
mands the  remark  that  just  such  extreme  method  was 
necessary  to  break  down  the  institutions  which  were 
oppressing  the  individual.  When  "  the  grand  monarch  " 
was  pleased  to  say,  "  I  am  the  State  "  it  had  very  much 
the  appearance  of  fact,  since  the  administration  of  public 
and  private  affairs  as  well  passed  through  his  hands. 
He  realized  in  France  something  of  the  condition  pro- 
posed by  Pharaoh  when  he  said  that  no  man  in  all  the 
land  of  Egypt  should  lift  up  his  hand  or  foot  but  by 
the  will  of  Joseph.  With  such  absolute  pretensions  there 
seemed  to  be  no  possible  compromise,  so  that  curing 
the  "  king's  evil  "  involved  the  killing  of  the  king.  The 
precedent  of  Rousseau  and  his  like,  with  the  consequent 
of  the  French  Revolution,  seemed  the  only  release  for  the 
French  peasant  from  intolerable  conditions. 

It  is,  perhaps,  too  early  to  get  at  the  social  value  of 
the  materialistic  views  of  society  proposed  by  Darwin 
and  the  other  biological  evolutionists.  It  seems  to  be 
the  case  that  each  social  theory,  when  far  enough  away 
that  we  can  get  its  social  bearings,  has  been  the  child 
of  a  present  need,  as  well  as  the  parent  of  some  social 
improvement,  this  being  the  case  even  when  it  is  fatally 
defective  as  a  complete  statement  of  social  facts.  Mr. 
Spencer,  by  his  describing  the  social  in  the  terms  of 
the  animal  organism,  has  doubtless  aided  in  clearing 
our  minds  for  a  true  understanding  of  the  nature  of 
society ;  but  that  should  not  blind  us  to  the  fact  that  his 
materialistic  view  of  society  fails  to  provide  for  the 
closest  social  unity  as  well  as  for  individual  freedom. 


86  SOCIAL  ETHICS. 

When  Mr.  Spencer  makes  the  point  that  since  nervous 
control  is  not  centralized  in  society  as  in  the  animal 
organism,  and  that  therefore  there  is  no  social  mind  nor 
any  place  for  Government,  thus  stating  the  premises  of 
philosophical  anarchism,  he  is  not  providing  the  con- 
ditions for  social  unity. 

When  the  psychological  conception  of  the  State  defines 
it  as  the  social  spirit,  it  makes  provision  for  the  closest 
unity.  Every  man  who  is  in  fact  a  citizen  has  this  social 
spirit  as  a  factor  in  his  life;  it  is  a  part  of  him  and 
because  of  this  fact  the  whole  citizenship  is  united  in  a 
spiritual  union.     It  is  the  man  million. 

One  of  the  clearest  statements  of  the  relation  of  the 
individual  to  the  State,  is  found  in  the  first  chapter  of 
Genesis.  There,  after  the  material  creation  had  taken 
place,  it  is  recorded  that  God  said :  "  Let  us  make  man 
in  our  image."  The  carrying  out  of  that  divine  purpose 
meant  that  man  should  be  like  God,  that  is,  that  there 
should  be  diversity  in  unity.  We  learn  in  a  book  which 
is  not  antiquated  in  its  statement  of  facts  that  "  there 
are  three  persons  in  the  Godhead,  the  Father,  the  Son, 
and  the  Holy  Ghost."  There  are  three,  yet  there  is  one. 
Society  made  in  the  likeness  of  God  has  the  same  char- 
acter;  there  is  one  and  there  are  many. 

Jesus  states  the  ideal  condition,  only  imperfectly  real- 
ized as  yet,  in  his  prayer  that,  "  they  all  may  be  one." 
But  though  not  realized  in  its  fulness,  it  is  the  social 
unity  which  in  spite  of  all  divergences  makes  citizenship 
a  kinship  of  life.  As  the  State  realizes  its  true  ideal, 
the  perfect  unity  which  is  in  the  plan  of  God  and  the 


THE  STATE  AND  THE  INDIVIDUAL  87 

destiny  of  men  will  be  manifested.    Thus  does  this  view 
of  the  State  make  the  fullest  provision  for  social  unity. 

It  must  be  admitted  that  there  are  social  classes  and 
individuals  "  discordant,  belligerent,"  in  which  the  com- 
mon mind,  the  social  spirit,  exists  only  in  promise;  but 
it  exists.  The  defect  is  not  in  the  plan,  but  in  its  realiza- 
tion. Aristotle  makes  the  point  that  the  social  conflicts 
are,  after  all,  proofs  of  an  underlying  social  unity,  the 
very  conflict  being  an  evidence  that  the  parties  belong 
to  the  same  sphere,  are  related  to  each  other.  The 
struggle  between  the  capitalist  and  the  laborer,  which 
is  continually  developing  new  phases,  gives  evidence 
at  every  turn,  of  the  dependence  of  each  class  upon  the 
other.  Capital  is  useless  without  labor;  labor  is  ineffi- 
cient without  capital. 

The  idea  of  the  Trinity  also  allows  for  the  complete 
individual  freedom  of  each  member,  and  this  because 
the  same  mind  is  in  all.  When  Jesus  did  the  will  of 
the  Father,  He  was  also  following  His  own  will.  "  My 
meat  is  to  do  the  will  of  him  that  sent  me,"  Jesus  said, 
and  his  saying  gives  us  the  meaning  of  His  life.  He 
was  perfectly  free  and  those  who  share  in  His  life  have 
"  the  glorious  liberty  of  the  sons  of  God." 

Now  it  may  be  objected  that  the  members  of  society 
are  very  far  from  the  perfection  which  belongs  to  those 
who  realize  the  divine  plan,  but  let  it  be  remembered 
that  philosophy  deals  with  the  nature  of  things,  with 
things  as  they  are  fully  developed.  Social  philosophy  — 
and  that  is  what  concerns  us  here  —  has  to  do  with  ideal 
society.     Plato,   Aristotle,   Rousseau,   Hegel, —  all   dealt 


88  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

with  social  ideals.     The  nature  of  anything  is  its  ideal 
condition,  not  some  stage  in  its  earlier  development. 

Paul  exhorted  those  to  whom  he  wrote :  "  Let  the 
same  mind  be  in  you  which  was  also  in  Christ  Jesus," 
and  the  nature  of  society  is  realized  only  when  it  has 
the  mind  of  Christ.  The  claim  here  made  is,  that  with 
all  due  regard  for  the  previous  social  theories  and  the 
work  which  they  did  in  social  reconstruction,  the  psy- 
chological view  of  the  State  as  the  social  spirit  is  the  only 
social  theory  which  conforms  to  the  Christian  ideal. 
While  the  theory  here  stated  will  doubtless  be  enlarged 
and  revised  as  fuller  social  knowledge  is  gained,  it  does 
not  appear  that  any  except  a  spiritual  conception  of 
the  State  can  provide  the  conditions  of  unity  and  indi- 
vidual freedom. 

A  Comparison  with  Plato's  Theory, 

Freedom  means  the  fullest  activity.  The  given  con- 
ditions in  the  problem  of  each  individual  are  the  life 
which  the  individual  has  already  gained,  the  social  life 
about  him,  and  the  divine  life.  There  is  nothing  except 
these.  When  the  individual  life  seeks  its  fullest  expres- 
sion it  must  be  found  by  going  out  into  the  life  of  society 
and  the  life  of  God.  It  is  in  this  way  that  the  individual 
life  develops,  gains  a  fuller  activity,  a  more  perfect 
freedom.  Anything  which  prevents  one  from  putting 
himself  into  the  life  of  his  fellows  and  the  life  of  God 
retards  freedom.  With  this  statement,  which  is  certainly 
true  if  man  is  essentially  spiritual,  we  may  test  the 
work  of  Plato. 


THE  STATE  AND  THE  INDIVIDUAL  89 

The  ascetic  who,  in  order  to  get  unity  with  God,  shut 
himself  off  from  men,  left  out  one  of  the  elements 
necessary  to  work  out  either  freedom  or  unity.  He  gave 
up  the  world's  problem  and  confessed  defeat  by  retiring 
from  the  field..  Plato  made  a  similar  mistake.  He  saw 
that  men  were  selfish  and  that  selfishness  stood  in  the 
way  of  social  unity.  So  far  he  was  right.  How  shall 
men  be  freed  from  selfishness  so  that  they  may  unite 
with  each  other?  Plato  said  we  must  take  away  his 
property  and  his  family,  and  then  he  can  not  have  a  self- 
ish object.  But  can  men  be  made  unselfish  by  any  such 
mechanical  means?  What  is  needed  rather  is  to  make 
men  see  that  wealth  and  family  are  only  means  to  gain 
a  greater  activity,  a  better  social  unity.  In  the  divine 
plan  all  these  things  were  given  as  a  means  to  the  de- 
velopment of  spirit.  We  must  not  throw  them  away. 
Man  must  learn  to  be  unselfish  in  the  use  of  money, 
in  the  treatment  of  others  in  the  family.  Before  both 
of  these  he  should  put  his  country.  It  is  not  allowable 
for  us  to  solve  our  social  problems  by  throwing  away 
such  of  the  factors  as  do  not  work  out  the  answer  we 
want.     The  correct  solution  needs  each   one. 

A  Comparison  with  Mr.  Spencer's  Theory. 

It  may  be  suggested  that  the  chief  error  of  Mr.  Spencer 
was  in  trying  to  work  out  a  spiritual  problem  with 
material  tools.  He  did  not  take  in  all  the  conditions 
of  individual  freedom,  since  he  left  out  the  life  of  God 
entirely  from  his  theory,  and  reduced  the  human  spirit 
to  subjection  to  physical  laws.     It  is  true  that  he  did 


90  SOCIAL  ETHICS. 

not  deny  that  there  was  a  God,  but  his  answer  was  made 
up  without  any  regard  to  Him,  thus  throwing  away  the 
only  key  to  the  social  situation.  Without  God  the  indi- 
vidual, subject  to  inexorable  force,  is  but  as  a  mote  in  the 
sunshine,  the  chip  in  Niagara.  Fate  is  the  blind  arbiter 
of  the  destiny  of  man  and  of  society. 


The  Kingdom  of  God,  Herbert  Stead;  Politics,  Aristotle; 
Aristotle's  Politics,  Lang;  The  Republic,  Plato;  Political  The- 
ories,' Dunning;  The  Social  Contract,  Rousseau;  Rousseau,  John 
Morley;  Essays  on  Government,  Lowell,  pp.  136-189;  Social 
Statics,  Herbert  Spencer;  The  Man  versus  the  State,  Herbert 
Spencer;  A  Plea  for  Liberty,  Herbert  Spencer;  Social  and 
Ethical  Interpretations,  Baldwin. 


THE  FACTORS  OF  SOCIAL  UNITY 

Freedom  is  the  end  of  the  individual;  unity  is  the 
end  of  the  State.  These  ends  are  not  antagonistic,  nor 
can  one  be  secured  without  the  other.  It  is  only  when 
the  social  elements  are  adjusted  and  working  in  har- 
mony with  each  other,  that  unity  is  secured;  only  under 
such  conditions  is  individual  freedom  possible.  Admit- 
ting this  to  be  a  statement  of  fact,  it  is  an  easy  step  to 
the  conclusion  that  any  psychic  factor  which  ministers  to 
social  unity  must,  finally,  work  for  freedom.  It  may 
work  for  one  end  directly,  the  other  indirectly,  but  no 
less  surely.  Among  the  factors  of  social  unity  we  may 
notice  race,  language,  religion,  and  social  commerce. 

Race. 

Race  serves  the  double  purpose  of  binding  together 
a  certain  community,  while,  at  the  same  time,  separating 
it  from  all  other  communities.  While  descent  from  Abra- 
ham, their  common  ancestor,  helped  to  fuse  the  Israelites 
into  one  people,  at  the  same  time  it  shut  out  all  who 
were  not  of  the  same  lineage.  Yet  it  was  necessary 
then,  as  since,  to  sacrifice  temporarily  the  wider  unity 
for  the  sake  of  training  a  few  people  to  live  together. 
Social  unity  is  realized  by  a  process  of  growth,  which  may 
not  be  unduly  hastened  without  social  damage.  With 
all  the  training  which  the  Israelites  had  as  a  separated 

9i 


ga  SOCIAL  ETHICS. 

people,  their  tribal  jealousies  had  prevented  such  devotion 
to  a  common  worship  and  interest  as  could  survive  in  the 
face  of  national  disaster,  until  the  exile  sloughed  off 
all  those  elements  of  the  population  that  lacked  the 
common  spirit. 

This  is  a  suggestion  of  the  fact  that  race  does  not 
mean  simply  descent  from  a  common  ancestor.  Every 
tribe  and  individual  of  the  Jewish  race  could  and  did 
boast  of  descent  from  Abraham,  but  that  was  not  enough 
to  integrate  their  lives.  The  bond  which  held  them 
together  was  not  simply  one  of  blood.  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  the  tie  was  rather  psychical  than  physical.  It 
consisted  in  a  common  history  and  tradition.  Few  peo- 
ples have  had  so  rich  a  fund  of  memories  as  Israel. 
Crowded  within  narrow  territorial  limits,  were  some  of 
the  most  remarkable  events  which  history  records.  Every 
valley  had  been  a  battle  ground  made  sacred  to  the 
children  by  the  father's  blood;  every  hilltop  had  its 
heroic  sacrifice  to  glorify  it.  With  this  common  heritage 
of  glorious  memories,  this  people  had  ideas  which  bound 
it  together  in  such  fashion  as  the  blood  bond  could  not 
have  done. 

,As  these  memories  were  usually  of  heroic  struggle 
against  surrounding  communities,  love  for  the  home  land 
was  united  with  hatred  for  the  foreigner;  indeed,  the 
very  name  applied  to  foreigners  was  the  term  for  enemies. 
Each  people  must  watch  the  line  of  its  frontier  only 
less  in  time  of  peace  than  in  the  frequent  wars.  What- 
ever duties  might  be  taught  as  due  to  those  within  the 
community,  nothing  was  due  to  the  man  outside  the  pale. 


FACTORS  OF  SOCIAL  UNITY  93 

It  is  this  fact  which  makes  so  unparalleled  the  saying 
of  Paul,  himself  of  the  straitest  sect  of  the  chosen  people 
of  God, — "  I  am  debtor  both  to  Greeks  and  to  Barbar- 
ians." None  of  the  sayings  of  the  Apostle  to  the  Gentiles 
more  clearly  brought  out  the  transformation  which 
Christ  had  worked  in  him,  than  this  acknowledgment  of 
a  duty  to  the  foreigner.  This  hatred  of  all  beyond  their 
own  bounds  served  its  social  purpose  in  preventing  their 
mingling  with  other  races.  Their  antipathies  as  well  as 
their  sympathies   ministered  to  the  social  end. 

This  leads  to  the  suggestion  that  influences  which 
are  socially  helpful  at  certain  periods  in  history,  may 
be  baneful  at  others.  In  early  times  it  seemed  essential 
that  the  group  should  develop  in  isolation,  that  it  might 
be  fitted  for  a  wider  life.  Individuals  need  to  be  trained 
in  the  family  if  they  are  to  do  their  work  as  citizens, 
so  does  each  people  require  its  separate  education  to 
enable  it  to  perform  its  duties  to  humanity.  The  de- 
velopment is  one  of  mind,  rather  than  of  a  physical 
nature,  therefore  is  rather  hindered  than  helped  by  the 
application  of  physical  force.  It  is  likely  to  remain  a 
mooted  question  whether  civilization  was  retarded  or 
advanced  through  the  crushing  of  national  individuality 
by  the  force  of  Roman  arms.  In  a  study  of  the  psychol- 
ogy of  peoples,  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  mind  can  be 
developed  by  spear  or  bullet. 

Poland  was  not  a  united  people  at  any  time,  since 
the  Government  was  administered  by  a  selfish  nobility 
which  resisted  all  reforms  that  might  ease  the  burdens 
laid  upon  the  serfs,  yet  is  the  Polish  spirit  of  sufficient 


94  SOCIAL  ETHICS. 

virility  to  give  Prussia  a  serious  problem  in  its  attempt 
to  Germanize  the  Polish  communities  which  were  ac- 
quired in  the  partition  of  Poland.  Prussia  went  to 
considerable  expense  to  borrow  this  trouble  and  the 
payments  are  not  all  made.  Bismarck  will  not  be  charged 
by  those  who  are  familiar  with  his  life  with  being  too 
scrupulous,  but  he  was  statesman  enough  to  oppose,  as 
he  is  said  to  have  done,  the  taking  of  Alsace  by  Germany 
in  1 87 1.  The  indemnity  paid  to  Germany  was  not 
grudged  by  France,  but  the  severing  of  Alsace  was  taking 
part  of  the  life. 

Each  people,  as  each  individual,  has  its  own  peculiar 
genius.  Not  in  all  cases  is  this  so  evident  as  is  the 
art  of  Greece,  the  legal  acumen  of  Rome,  and  the  free- 
dom of  the  German,  but  in  less  striking  degree  it  is 
present.  Who  can  tell  what  of  national  genius  was 
crushed  out  of  shape  or  existence  by  the  empires  of  the 
past!  The  saying  of  the  Mohammedan  conqueror  when 
he  ordered  the  destruction  of  the  Alexandrian  library, 
that  if  the .  knowledge  stored  there  was  in  the  Koran 
they  did  not  need  it,  and  that  if  it  was  not  in  the  Koran 
they  did  not  want  it,  is  the  language  of  the  conqueror 
in  all  ages.  It  is  his  end  to  compel  other  institutions 
and  other  ideas  to  conform  to  his  standards,  with  de- 
struction as  the  only  alternative.  It  is  a  social  injury 
when  an  individual  loses  his  individuality,  much  greater 
is  the  loss  when  the  same  must  be  said  of  a  people. 
The  attempt  to  fit  a  man  to  his  clothes  is  attended  with 
much  pain  and  no  little  deformity,  nor  can  we,  without 
the  application  of  the  rack  and  the  boot,  fit  one  people 


FACTORS  OF  SOCIAL  UNITY  95 

into  the  institutions  of  another.  The  proper  course  is  to 
change  their  minds,  and  the  institutions  and  ideas  will 
change  themselves. 

Rome  contributed  much  to  the  formal  unity  of  the 
world,  perhaps  little  to  its  psychic  unity.  For  the  latter 
purpose  the  methods  of  Paul  were  superior  to  the  meth- 
ods of  Caesar.  Paul's  conquests  remain,  while  those  of  the 
Caesar  vanished  with  the  retreating  legions.  One  social 
service  the  ancient  empire  sought  to  render ;  while  it  sent 
out  its  legions  of  trained  robbers,  it  insisted  on  a  monop- 
oly of  this  particular  business  and  drove  all  others  out 
of  the  trade.  Private  robbers  were  suppressed  on  the 
land,  and  pirates,  on  their  own  individual  account,  were 
driven  from  the  sea.  The  great  contribution  which 
Rome  made  to  the  unity  of  the  world  was  the  system 
of  laws,  which  has  a  large  place  in  the  jurisprudence 
of  all  constitutional  Governments. 

Through  physical  and  psychical  heredity,  and  specially 
by  the  latter,  races  develop  along  consistent  lines.  They 
breathe  the  same  atmosphere  of  thought,  they  hold  to  the 
same  traditions  and  relationships,  cherish  the  same  ideals. 
This  is  the  race  life.  It  is  not  only  that  it  lives  in  the 
individual,  but  he  lives  in  it.  One  can  not  vivisect  the 
individual  and  discover  his  life,  nor  can  the  race  be 
dissected  and  the  social  spirit  located,  but  it  is  evident 
that  there  is  life  in  both  cases  from  the  effects  which 
are  produced. 

In  the  course  of  history,  races  are  frequently  divided, 
and,  through  peculiarity  of  position,  develop  in  somewhat 
different   ways.      England   and   America  belong  to   the 


96  SOCIAL  ETHICS. 

Anglo-Saxon  race,  yet  the  civilization  of  the  two  coun- 
tries has  not  followed  the  same  line  of  development. 
It  may  not  have  been  the  typical  Englishman  who  settled 
in  the  colonies,  the  environment  of  the  pioneer  was  quite 
different  from  that  which  he  left  behind;  whatever  the 
cause  or  causes  it  is  evident  that  the  sea  is  not  the  only 
division  between  England  and  America.  The  physical 
basis  may  be  much  the  same  in  the  two  peoples,  but  the 
psychic  differences  are  marked.  A  good  degree  of  suc- 
cess along  industrial  lines  has  made  the  Anglo-Saxon 
intolerant  of  opposition  and  left  him  a  somewhat  un- 
pleasant associate  for  other  peoples,  but  the  citizen  of 
either  country  has  usually  demanded  a  large  amount  of 
freedom  for  himself,  even  though  inclined  to  limit  it 
in  others.  His  leading  characteristic  is  a  determination 
to  rule.  When  the  proposed  reunion  of  the  Anglo-Saxon 
race  is  achieved,  by  which  the  gap  opened  in  1776  is 
closed,  the  important  question  will  be  which  is  to  be 
head  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  household.  In  neither  case, 
with  present  indications,  will  there  be  any  desire  for  the 
lowermost  room. 

Language. 

A  word  is  the  expression  of  an  idea;  language  is  the 
expression  of  social  thought.  An  individual  may  coin  a 
word,  but  he  cannot  give  it  currency.  It  is  like  money,  in 
that  its  simplest  test  is  whether  others  are  willing  to  use  it. 
A  word  can  not  go  into  the  language  unless  it  can  be 
put  in  circulation;  it  can  get  into  circulation  only  on 
condition  that  the   same  idea  is  in   other  minds  and 


FACTORS  OF  SOCIAL  UNITY  $7 

demands  expression.  When  a  writer  has  an  idea  which 
he  thinks  no  word  in  the  language  adequately  expresses, 
he  makes  a  word  and  puts  it  on  the  market  like  a  com- 
modity. It  is  when  they  do  not  meet  any  social  demand 
that  words  die. 

It  is  for  these  reasons  that  language  is  a  social  product. 
Comte  said  that  the  man  who  denied  the  existence  of 
society  belied  his  statement  by  the  words  he  used,  since 
these  words  were  the  product  of  the  society  whose 
existence  he  denied. 

Language  is  one  of  the  evidences  of  a  social  mind. 
The  language  of  a  people  is  an  enduring  monument 
of  its  character.  In  the  language  are  recorded  the 
thoughts  of  the  social  heart.  Few  poets  have  spoken 
the  heart  of  a  people  more  than  did  Robert  Burns,  and 
it  is  indicative  of  the  morals  of  his  age  that  it  is  neces- 
sary to  prune  his  language  to  satisfy  the  present  stand- 
ard. Shakespeare,  whose  lofty  thought  is  the  wonder 
of  later  times,  is  read  today  in  an  expurgated  edition. 
It  may  be  said  that  later  times  have  learned  to  hide 
their  vulgarity  under  more  polished  phrases,  but  at  least 
it  can  not  appear  upon  the  printed  page.  Very  clearly 
is  the  change  of  social  mind  from  the  Elizabethan  to 
the  Puritan  age  marked  in  the  contrasted  language  of 
Shakespeare  and  Milton.  The  seriousness  which  could 
find  expression  only  through  the  phraseology  of  the  Old 
Testament  prophets  is  in  strong  contrast  with  the  license 
of  the  writing  in  the  time  of  Queen  Bess.  One  may 
read  the  morals  of  Rome  no  less  in  the  language  of  her 
poets  than  in  the  pictures  of  vice  upon  the  walls  of  thft 


98  SOCIAL  ETHICS. 

buildings  in  exhumed  Pompeii.  Even  the  translation 
of  passages  of  Latin  which  are  used  in  the  classroom, 
would  not  be  tolerated  in  the  columns  of  our  daily  papers. 
What  the  language  of  the  vulgar  must  have  been  is  left 
to  our  imagination,  but  it  at  least  yields  to  us  the  reason 
why  Rome  collapsed  at  the  coming  of  the  German.  The 
corruptions  of  the  people  are  embodied  in  their  speech. 

Each  people  has  a  language  distinctively  its  own. 
When  the  student  takes  up  a  foreign  tongue,  if  he  would 
understand  its  shades  of  meaning,  he  must  put  himself 
into  the  life  of  the  people  so  that  he  can  see  things  with 
their  eyes  and  think  with  a  mind  like  to  theirs.  He 
can  not  put  their  thoughts  into  his  native  tongue,  except 
in  crude  fashion.  If  he  is  dealing  with  the  language 
of  a  living  people,  the  thought  of  the  age  will  give  the 
foreign  tongue  some  kindred  with  his  own,  since  there 
will  be  many  points  of  contact ;  but  if  it  is  the  language 
of  a  people  which  has  passed  away,  his  task  is  more 
difficult.  It  is  hard  to  place  one's  self  in  ancient  Greece 
or  Rome.  This  is  plain  to  any  one  when  he  reflects 
how  changed  are  the  standards  and  customs,  the  prob- 
lems and  proposals  for  their  solution.  Then  as  now 
the  contest  was  on  between  the  rich  and  the  poor,  but 
the  conditions  of  the  contest  and  the  demands  are  entirely 
different. 

These  commonplace  illustrations  enable  us  to  pass  to 
the  proposition  that  in  the  present  stage  of  social  devel- 
opment each  people  should  cultivate  its  own  language 
within  its  boundaries.  The  babel  of  tongues  which  one 
may  hear  in  the  streets  of  New  York  is  the  proof  of 


FACTORS  OF  SOCIAL  UNITY  99 

divergent  thinking  and  interests.  These  must  somehow 
be  unified.  Scarcely  a  people  of  the  earth  but  has  its 
little  segregated  community  living  the  life,  and  voicing 
the  ideas  of  a  foreign  land  in  the  commercial  heart  of 
this  country.  The  object  in  coming  here  was  to  gain 
the  wealth  which  is  currently  reported  abroad  to  be  here 
for  the  taking,  while  the  immigrants  have  little  sym- 
pathy with  the  American  spirit  and  institutions.  Food 
to  eat,  shelter  to  live  in,  clothes  to  put  on,  fill  the  meas- 
ure of  their  wants.  They  need  enough  of  our  language 
to  buy  and  sell  in  the  market,  even  that  being  unnecessary 
if  the  community  is  large  enough  to  live  to  itself.  The 
lower  class  of  immigrants  are  usually  worked  in  gangs, 
where  only  the  leader,  who  fleeces  his  countrymen  for 
his  own  advantage,  can  speak  English.  These  segre- 
gated groups  carry  on  their  business  in  their  native 
tongue,  in  which,  also,  their  newspapers  are  printed, 
and  to  all  intents  they  are  foreign  communities.  How 
shall  these  be  made  to  imbibe  our  social  spirit  and 
become  assimilated  to  the  life  in  which  they  exist  as 
foreign  elements? 

To  get  a  use  of  English  is  not  the  most  essential  thing, 
but  it  is  one  of  the  essentials  if  these  foreigners  are  to 
gain  the  ideas  embodied  in  its  words  and  to  share  in 
the  social  spirit  which  finds  expression  through  it.  It 
is  poor  economy  which  grudges,  or  withholds,  the  money 
for  schools  to  win  these  peoples  in  our  midst  to  our 
ideas,  thus  neglecting  the  alien  population,  at  home,  and 
which  squanders  millions  on  an  ironclad  with  which 
to  coerce   foreign  populations  abroad.     At  the  present 


ioo  SOCIAL  ETHICS. 

time  there  are  60,000  children  in  New  York  City  with- 
out school  accommodation.  As  one  looks  on  such  a 
situation  he  feels  a  measure  of  sympathy  with  the  view 
of  Professor  Lester  Ward  that  we  are  still  guided  by 
animal  instincts,  not  having  emerged  into  the  sphere 
where  reason  reigns.  It  is  not  essential  that  some  other 
people  in  another  land  should  speak  our  mother  tongue, 
since  it  is  possible,  and  probable,  that  their  social  char- 
acteristics would  find  better  means  of  expression  through 
the  one  which  has  grown  with  their  life,  but  we  should 
have  one  language  taught  and  spoken  from  New  York 
to  San  Francisco.  The  Boer  was  only  providing  for  the 
existence  of  his  nationality  when  he  insisted  that  Dutch 
should  be  the  language  of  the  schools.  Through  all 
the  conquests  by  Dane  and  Norman,  the  mother  tongue 
was  retained  by  the  English  people.  Thus  they  preserved 
their  nationality. 

Germany  has  a  language  problem  on  its  Eastern  and 
Western  frontiers  consequent  on  its  greed  for  territory. 
In  the  Polish  districts  on  the  East  it  is  reported  by  the 
press  that  the  native  tongue  is  prohibited  in  the  prayers 
which  the  children  are  taught,  while  Alsace  on  the  West 
had  the  French  language  taken  from  her  schools  by 
imperial  decree.  The  question  of  language  is  fomenting 
the  dissensions  that  exist  between  the  struggling  nation- 
alities in  Austria-Hungary.  Even  Ireland,  where  the 
Celtic  tongue  had  been  almost  forgotten,  is  having  a 
renaissance  of  her  original  language.  In  each  case  it 
is  the  race  spirit  which  is  demanding  expression  through 
its  native  medium. 


FACTORS  OF  SOCIAL  UNITY  101 


The  fact  which  statesmen  must  see  as  it  is  written  in' 
history  and  current  events,  is  that  the  spirit  of  each  peo- 
ple should  be  allowed  expression  in  the  way  peculiar 
to  itself. 

One  of  the  standing  charges  against  economic  social- 
ism is  that  it  would  take  the  diversity  out  of  life  and 
reduce  it  to  a  dead  monotony.  Whether  this  charge 
is  in  any  way  supported  by  the  evidence,  is  left  to  each 
to  decide  for  himself,  but  it  is  notorious  that  the  classes 
most  opposed  to  socialism  are  busily  engaged,  in  many 
cases,  in  trying  to  enforce  their  institutions  upon  reluct- 
ant peoples. 

The  free  spirit  is  what  we  wish  to  develop  among 
human  kind.  Each  people  requires  its  own  mode  of 
expression  and  this  should  be  common  to  all  within 
the  country,  since  the  common  spirit  is  what  makes 
them  one  people.  Switzerland  is  an  anomaly  among  the 
nations,  since,  though  divided  into  opposing  camps  in 
religion  and  having  no  language  of  its  own,  it  has 
preserved  its  freedom  and  developed  its  own  peculiar 
institutions.  With  the  religious  demarcation  between 
the  Catholic  and  Protestant  Cantons,  with  the  larger 
part  of  the  population  speaking  the  German  language 
and  singing  the  national  songs  of  Germany,  with  the 
Italian  tongue  on  the  southern  slopes  of  the  Alps,  and 
the  French  near  the  Jura  Mountains  on  the  West,  yet 
Switzerland  has  a  united  people.  The  national  tradi- 
tions and  common  interests  maintain  a  common  life 
in  spite  of  the  varied  forms  through  which  it  is  expressed. 
However  it  may  be  possible  for  certain  communities  to 


102  SOCIAL  ETHICS. 

retain  their  unity  in  spite  of  diversity  of  language,  it 
is  yet  .certain  that  a/ common  language  ministers  to  a 
community  of  thought.  The  proposal,  in  certain  places, 
that  German  should  take  the  place  of  English  in  our 
common  schools  could  not  be  accepted  with  safety  to 
the  State.  The  children  of  the  foreigner  should  learn 
our  language,  be  taught  our  national  songs  and  our 
history,  be  connected  by  every  possible  channel  with  the 
social  life.  We  can  not  afford  to  have  a  Little  Italy 
and  a  Little  Russia  in  the  great  centers  of  population, 
which  are  also  the  centers  of  influence. 

Religion. 

"  In  ancient  times,"  writes  M.  DeCoulanges,  *  men 
knew  no  other  relation  than  that  which  religion  estab- 
lished." All  the  acts  of  the  individual  and  of  the  city, 
were  regulated  by  the  gods.  The  father,  who  was  also 
the  priest  of  the  family,  must,  before  he  began  the 
duties  of  the  day,  propitiate  the  sacred  fire  upon  the 
hearthstone.  He  could  properly  sow  his  field  only  when 
he  had  discovered  by  the  signs  that  the  gods  were 
favorable.  Before  corn  reached  the  ear,  ten  divinities 
had  been  consulted  in  Rome.  The  gods  of  the  mildew, 
the  rust,  and  the  sunshine,  must  all  be  worshiped  with 
the  proper  formulas.  Indeed,  most  carefully  must  these 
formulas  be  followed,  since  the  omission  of  so  much  as 
a  gesture,  might  call  down  upon  the  hapless  husband- 
man the  wrath  of  the  offended  diety.  Men  did  not  love 
the  gods,  nor  was  it  suggested  that  the  gods  had  any 
love  tor  men,  but  these  services  were  rendered  with 


FACTORS  OF  SOCIAL  UNITY  103 

anxious  care,  to  avert  the  vengeance  of  the  rulers  of 
the  iorces  in  earth  and  air. 

At  the  boundary  of  the  fields  were  the  stones  set  which 
Were  sacred  to  the  gods  Termini,  and  the  removal  of 
these  landmarks  would  be  an  impious  act.  For  centuries 
did  these  superstitions  supply  the  place  of  police  sur- 
veillance, and  when  Horace  speaks  about  the  rich  men 
uprooting  these  landmarks  that  they  might  appropriate 
the  plot  of  the  poor,  it  shows  that  religion  had  ceased 
to  afford  protection  to  the  weak  against  the  strong. 
Such  an  action  would  have  been  impossible  until  Romans 
had  lost  faith  in  the  gods. 

The  farmer  rendered  scrupulous  service  to  the  dead 
as  well  as  to  the  living,  since  his  steading  belonged  to 
his  family,  past,  and  present,  rather  than  to  himself. 
His  fathers,  to  the  earliest  generations,  had  their  graves 
beside  his  home  and  as  regularly  as  food  was  prepared 
for  the  living,  must  it  be  presented  in  offerings  to  the 
dead,  that  they  might  not  wander  as  lost  souls  in  the 
nether  world.  Such  would  be  the  condition  of  the  whole 
line  of  ancestors,  if  the  family  should  become  extinct, 
so  marriage  was  carefully  guarded  and  children  from 
other  families  were  adopted,  when  necessary,  to  keep 
the  line  intact.  The  most  illustrious  of  the  Emperors 
of  Rome,  those  from  Nerva  to  Marcus  Aurelius,  were 
children  by  adoption  of  the  preceding  ruler.  The  purity 
of  the  family  relation  was  demanded  for  the  welfare 
of  the  dead. 

The  city,  which  was  the  State  as  the  Roman  knew 
it,  was  founded  on  religion.     The  situation  was  not, 


104  SOCIAL  ETHICS. 

first  of  all,  determined  by  its  suitability  for  commerce, 
nor  for  defence,  though  these  interests  were  usually  con- 
served in  the  result.  It  must  be  placed  where  the  chief 
man,  acting  as  priest  for  the  others,  found  the  gods 
favorable.  Along  the  proposed  site  of  the  city  walls  a 
furrow  was  drawn  to  mark  the  line,  the  plow  being 
lifted  from  the  earth  at  the  places  where  the  gates 
must  stand.  Had  the  furrow  been  drawn  entirely  around 
the  plot  of  ground,  no  one  might  have  entered  it,  since 
it  was  an  act  of  impiety  to  cross  the  furrow.  It  may 
have  been  to  show  the  anger  of  the  gods  with  such  a 
sacrilegious  act,  that  the  mythical  account  of  the  found- 
ing of  Rome  records  the  slaying  of  Remus  by  Romulus 
for  leaping  over  the  wall.  All  within  the  city  wall  was 
consecrated  ground,  and  here  were  placed  the  temples 
of  the  gods  with  the  Government  of  the  city,  for  in  those 
times  the  gods  supervised  both  the  ecclesiastical  and 
the  political  functions.  Here  was  the  civitas,  and  the 
citizen  was  the  man  who  was  priviliged  to  share  in  the 
worship  at  this  shrine.  The  urbs  outside  was  for  the 
dwellings  of  the  people,  for  in  -the  sacred  place  the 
priests  must  dwell  alone,  and  keep  jealous  watch  upon 
the  sacred  fire,  the  extinguishing  of  which  was  an  evil 
omen  for  the  city.  In  Rome  the  Vestal  virgin  through 
whose  carelessness  the  fire  went  out  must  suffer  death. 
When  it  was  extinguished  it  must  be  rekindled  from  a 
pure  flame. 

Into  the  worship  of  the  gods  of  the  city  no  stranger 
might  intrude  lest  he  defile  it,  and  none  might  be  citizens 
who  did  not  share  in  the  common  worship.     However 


FACTORS  OF  SOCIAL  UNITY  105 

jealously  the  ancient  Hebrews  guarded  their  faith  from 
the  intrusion  of  foreigners,  they  drew  the  lines  less  closely 
than  did  the  contemporary  Greeks.  So  carefully  were 
the  religious  rites  and  citizenship — for  these  went  together 
—  guarded  in  Athens,  that  in  her  early  days  a  stranger 
became  a  citizen  only  after  much  formality.  He  must 
be  accepted  twice  by  the  vote  of  the  assembly,  the  second 
election  requiring  six  thousand  votes  in  his  favor;  he 
then  must  be  passed  upon  by  the  senate,  and  even  after 
acceptance  with  this  body  the  negative  vote  of  a  single 
citizen  would  cause  his  rejection.  Yet  this  was  the  rule 
in  what  men  are  pleased  to  label  the  Athenian  democ- 
racy. As  a  citizen  at  Rome  the  individual  was  a  member 
of  four  religious  orders  —  the  family,  the  gens,  the  curia, 
and  the  city.  Each  of  these  must  be  entered  by  speci- 
fied religious  formulas  excepting  those  who  became  mem- 
bers of  the  family  by  birth.  Each  institution  had  its  gods 
to  whom  worship  was  due. 

The  head  of  the  Roman  administration,  be  he  king 
or  consul,  was  the  chief  priest  of  the  city,  and  in  the 
sacred  limits  he  offered  sacrifices  for  the  welfare  of  the 
city,  and,  through  the  auspices,  received  the  will  of  the 
gods  for  the  conduct  of  affairs.  Was  a  battle  to  be 
fought,  was  a  peace  to  be  concluded,  he  must  consult 
the  gods.  At  Platea,  so  much  were  the  Greeks  dependent 
on  the  will  of  the  gods,  that  they  suffered  their  first 
ranks  to  be  slain  by  the  enemy,  waiting  until  the  auspices 
would  be  favorable  for  beginning  the  attack.  The  con- 
voking of  the  legislative  bodies,  their  dissolution,  the 
business  to  be  transacted,  must  all  wait  until  the  augurs 


106  SOCIAL  ETHICS. 

reported  that  the  signs  were  favorable.  This  put  an 
immense  power  in  the  hand  of  the  augurs,  since  all 
public  business  waited  on  their  reports  of  peals  of  thun- 
der, of  flights  of  birds,  and  other  signs  to  which  they 
looked  in  order  to  know  the  will  of  the  gods. 

These  provisions  indicate  the  place  which  religion 
had  in  the  early  society.  It  presided  no  less  in  the 
making  of  the  laws  than  in  the  offering  of  the  sacri- 
fices. The  king  as  well  as  the  priest  must  be  acceptable 
to  the  gods,  since  upon  their  favor  depended  the  safety 
of  the  city.  It  was  thus  that  religion  bound  the  city 
together,  but  at  the  same  time  it  rigidly  excluded  the 
stranger.  Before  the  Romans  could  conscientiously  steal 
the  Sabine  women  for  their  wives,  it  was  necessary  to 
discover  that  they  had  some  gods  in  common.  No  mat- 
ter what  phase  of  Roman  life  is  examined,  it  would  be 
found  that  there  was  provision  for  religious  control. 
Religion  was  the  social  bond  within  the  community;  it 
was  the  barrier  against  all  intercourse  with  other  com- 
munities. 

This  was  the  idea  of  the  ancient  faiths.  It  was  as 
natural  that  each  locality  and  people  should  have  its 
own  god  as  that  it  should  have  its  own  king.  Each 
band  of  worshipers  had  its  secret  cult,  which  must  not 
be  revealed  to  the  uninitiated.  Some  of  the  more  recent 
secret  orders  have  many  points  of  resemblance  to  the 
early  religious  association.  When  the  wife  was  brought 
into  the  Roman  home,  she  had  to  be  initiated  into  the 
secrets  of  the  religion  which  she  must  never  reveal. 
Thus  it  is  seen  that  the  ancient  religion  not  only  sep- 


FACTORS  OF  SOCIAL  UNITY  107 

arated  each  community  into  castes  and  classes,  but  it 
shut  out  each  community  from  every  other.  So  long  as 
Olympus  had  its  quarrels  among  the  gods,  it  followed 
that  there  could  be  no  close  unity  of  the  Greek  cities 
which  served  the  Olympian  gods;  so  long  as  divinity 
was  thought  of  as  divided,  humanity  could  gain  no  uni- 
versal bond  which  could  bind  its  members  into  a  com- 
mon life.     Monotheism  made  this  unity  possible. 

Christianity  served  the  social  unity  because  it  was  uni- 
versal and  not  limited  to  any  locality  or  community. 
Thus,  instead  of  separating  men  into  warring  groups,  it 
bound  them  together  in  a  common  life.  In  any  part  of 
the  earth  the  man  who  can  say  "  Our  Father  "  is  kindred 
to  every  other  whose  heart  makes  the  same  confession. 
While  the  ancient  peoples  called  upon  their  several  gods 
for  their  assistance  as  they  went  into  battle,  we  see  the 
spectacle  today  of  different  people  each  calling  on  this 
one  Father  as  they  go  out  to  burn  and  slay.  No  nation, 
or  tongue,  or  kindred,  or  people,  can  be  outside  the 
scope  of  the  Christian  religion.  In  its  very  nature  it 
is  universal  and  inclusive  of  humanity.  A  fatherhood 
in  heaven  necessitates  a  brotherhood  on  earth. 

The  ancient  religions  not  only  excluded  from  their 
favor  all  outside  the  particular  race,  but  they  formed 
classes  within  the  community.  This  is  one  of  the  facts 
which  Hinduism  must  explain  when  it  is  put  forward  as 
a  rival  to  Christianity.  That  classes  are  segregated 
among  ourselves  must  be  admitted,  though  too  far  from 
the  exclusiveness  of  caste  separation  to  bear  comparison, 
but  this  social  separation  exists  in  contradiction  to  the 


108  SOCIAL  ETHICS. 

teachings  of  Christianity.  Hinduism,  on  the  other  hand, 
is  bound  up  with  this  caste  system.  The  Bible  puts 
forward  Jesus  as  the  meeting  place  of  all  classes,  learned 
or  ignorant,  rich  or  poor.  He  has  not  only  "  made  of 
one  blood  all  men,"  but  he  furnishes  in  himself  a  com- 
mon point  of  contact.  All  class  separations  are  in  vio- 
lation of  His  teaching.  He  met  with  the  rich  and  the 
poor,  not  because  of  their  riches  or  their  poverty,  but 
because  of  their  manhood.  That  which  men  count  as 
distinctive  badges  of  superiority,  has  no  value  in  the 
economy  of  Jesus.  Burns  voiced  the  social  teachings 
of  Jesus  when  he  said :  "  The  rank  is  but  the  guinea's 
stamp.    The  man's  the  gold  for  a'  that." 

Christianity  is  superior  to  materialism  as  a  social  bond 
in  the  same  way  that  the  former  excels  the  early  faiths. 
Materialism  sets  forward  as  the  end  of  man's  efforts, 
that  which  divides  society  instead  of  unifying  it.  Pro- 
fessor Clark  in  his  treatise,  "  The  Philosophy  of  Wealth," 
makes  the  point,  that  so  long  as  the  attention  of  both 
employer  and  employed  is  fastened  on  distribution,  there 
can  be  no  more  than  temporary  truces  between  these 
contending  parties,  since  the  gain  of  one  is  regarded 
as  the  loss  of  the  other  party.  Professor  Clark  argues 
for  some  agreement  as  to  a  ratio  of  division  of  product, 
so  that  both  employer  and  workman  could  give  their 
whole  attention  to  the  production  of  goods,  a  point  in 
which  they  might  agree.  Now  materialism  fails  by  di- 
recting men's  minds  to  this  question  of  distribution. 
Since  it  makes  material  goods  the  prize  of  life,  and  since 
there  is  never  enough  to  satisfy  man's  selfish  desire  for 


FACTORS  OF  SOCIAL  UNITY  ioq 

display,  if  not  for  comforts,  there  must  be  dispute  over 
the  division  of  goods.  For  this,  materialism  can  afford 
no  cure.  If  man's  end  is  not  material,  but  spiritual,  he 
is  dealing  in  goods  where  the  gain  of  one  may  be  also 
the  gain  of  another,  never  his  privation. 

Social  Commerce. 

This  term  is  used  to  include  all  exchange  in  ideas 
which  is  going  on  between  minds.  That  the  social  mind 
may  perform  its  function  in  social  control,  there  needs 
to  be  some  free  forum  for  the  expression  of  divergent 
individual  opinions.  In  a  small  way  this  is  realized  in 
the  classroom,  where  each  individual  gives  free  expres- 
sion to  his  best  thought,  and  the  teacher's  work  is  found 
in  making  a  consensus  of  the  views,  harmonizing  them, 
so  far  as  may  be,  into  the  complete  truth.  Anyone  who 
has  experienced  such  training  has  gained  through  the 
calm,  frank  interchange  of  views  more  respect  for  the 
views  of  his  neighbor  and  a  larger  conception  of  the 
truth. 

The  political  campaign  affords  some  facilities  as  a 
free  forum,  but  the  writing  and  speaking  is  usually 
for  the  purpose  of  defeating  an  opponent,  rather  than 
to  get  at  the  truth  in  the  issue.  One  who  has  listened 
to  a  discussion  on  the  street,  or  on  the  platform,  would 
be  impressed  with  the  intolerance  of  the  parties  of  any 
modification  of  their  views,  rather  than  a  seeking  for 
a  broader  range  of  mental  vision.  Excited  men  can  not 
weigh  opinions  and  get  at  their  social  value.  One  of 
our  great  difficulties  is  our  ignorance  of  the  position  held 


no  SOCIAL  ETHICS. 

by  those  in  other  occupations,  or  in  other  schools  of 
thought,  and  whatever  will  enable  us  to  gain  their  point 
of  view  will  be  of  great  social  advantage  in  bringing 
social  classes  into  harmony. 

Nor  does  the  press,  as  at  present  conducted,  satisfy 
the  demands  of  a  public  forum.  Such  it  should  be,  but 
in  its  real  or  supposed  need  to  cater  to  the  subscriber, 
and  specially  to  the  advertiser,  it  gains  only  an  individual 
point  of  view.  This  fact  is  not  resented  by  most  readers, 
since  one  usually  likes  to  have  his  own  views  presented 
rather  than  those  representing  some  other  phase  of  the 
truth,  and  is  ready  with  the  threat  "  Stop  my  paper  M 
whenever  some  other  chord  is  struck.  There  are  a  few 
newspapers  which  may  fairly  be  classed  as  independent, 
and  thus  capable  of  looking  at  current  events  without 
partisan  bias,  but  they  are  lamentably  few.  The  great 
bulk  of  the  political  press  is  working  social  damage 
through  the  ignorant,  or  intentional,  perversion  of  facts. 

There  are  many  ways  in  which  this  interchange  of 
ideas  is  being  carried  on,  though  perhaps  in  no  place 
is  it  so  fully  realized  as  in  the  classroom,  but  this  agency 
represents  the  different  social  classes  only  partially,  some 
are  not  repreented  at  all.  What  is  needed  is  a  social 
forum  to  include  those  representing  every  phase  of  the 
social  problem. 


History  of  Civilisation,  Buckle ;  Physics  and  Politics,  Bagehot ; 
The  Ancient  City,  DeCoulanges;  The  Philosophy  of  History, 
Hegel;    The  Incarnation  and  Common  Life,  Westcott. 


THE   SOCIAL  MIND 

History  has  been  written  from  many  points  of  view, 
each  writer  congratulating  himself  on  having  compassed 
the  whole  situation.  Going  so  far  back  as  the  Middle 
Ages,  the  chroniclers  dealt  only  with  ecclesiastical  af- 
fairs, with  some  attention  to  the  rise  and  fall  of  kings; 
with  the  rise  of  the  European  nationalities,  history  came 
to  be  written  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  titled  few 
who  were  in  political  control;  in  recent  times  history 
has  been  said  by  Karl  Marx,  and  the  materialisitc  school 
which  he  represents,  to  owe  its  changes  solely  to  eco- 
nomic causes.  Now,  whether  history  can  be  written 
from  the  standpoint  of  the  social  life,  instead  of  that 
of  some  specially  favored  class,  may  be  doubted,  since 
it  is  open  to  question  whether  any  one  mind  can  grasp 
the  whole  life  in  a  single  view.  At  least  we  can  see 
that  this  should  be  the  aim  of  the  historian. 

The  economic,  the  ecclesiastical,  the  political,  are  only 
different  phases  of  life.  The  writer  of  biography  looks 
at  the  life  and  surroundings  of  his  subject,  but  it  is  not 
necessary  for  him  to  fall  into  the  error  of  Carlyle  and 
imagine  that  biography  is  history,  even  where  great  men 
are  concerned.  History  can  not  be  the  biography  of 
certain  men.  The  social  life  is  larger  than  the  individual 
life,  and  the  whole  includes  the  part,  not  the  reverse. 
Luther  did  not  make  the  Protestant  Reformation ;  Samuel 

in 


ii2  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

Adams  did  not  produce  the  American  Revolution.  BotK 
men  put  the  unspoken  thought  of  many  into  spoken 
words,  and  made  themselves  the  rallying  point  for  an 
idea.  The  idea  was  not  of  their  making.  The  service 
which  the  great  leader  of  men  renders  is  to  put  popular 
thought  into  a  concise  form  which  all  can  understand. 

A  social  revolution  is  the  fruition  of  a  social  idea. 
Far  back  in  the  years  the  idea  was  the  possession  of 
some  forgotten  individual,  and  men  have  struggled  and 
died  that  it  might  win  the  popular  approval  and  enlarge 
the  social  life.  Until  the  fifteenth  century  Europe  had 
faced  the  East  and  the  past;  then  it  faced  about  to  the 
West  and  the  future.  Till  then  pope,  king  and  Church 
had  been  measured  by  ancient  standards ;  now  they  must 
stand  at  the  bar  of  a  new  idea.  The  nations  had  been 
in  leading  strings  to  Rome;  now  her  Empire,  now  her 
Church.  The  time  had  come  for  an  idea  to  pass  judg- 
ment upon  the  judge.  The  Council  of  Trent  sought  to 
restrain  the  idea  by  all  the  methods  which  had  succeeded 
in  the  past  crises  of  the  Church  of  Rome;  the  feudal 
barons  tried  to  save  the  old  institutions;  but  the  result, 
however  long  delayed,  was  that  ^institutions  had  to  be 
adjusted  to  the  idea.  The  invention  of  printing,  the 
discovery  of  America,  the  coining  of  money,  the  begin- 
nings of  commerce, —  all  gave  expression  to  the  new 
idea.    It  was  a  change  of  the  social  mind. 

History  is  shaped  primarily  by  ideas,  by  psychic  in- 
fluences; it  is  a  development  of  the  social  mind.  It 
might  seem,  at  first  sight,  that  this  made  social  develop- 
ment a  simple   process,  leaving  no  place  for  war,  for 


THE  SOCIAL  MIND  113 

heroic  action  and  martyr  blood,  but  the  getting  of  an 
idea  is  a  painful  process,  as  anyone  will  witness  who  has 
experienced  it.  When  it  comes  into  the  individual  mind, 
this  new  idea  compels  a  rearrangement  of  the  whole 
system  of  knowledge  to  fit  it.  Often  some  of  the  lares 
and  penates  of  the  household  have  to  be  displaced,  or 
even  cast  aside  in  this  rearrangement.  Perhaps  the  less 
mental  furniture  there  is  in  stock,  the  greater  will  be  the 
objection  to  moving  it  about,  or  discarding  it,  in  giving 
place  to  the  new  conception.  The  fabulous  account  of 
the  Western  chickens  that  fell  on  their  backs  and  held 
their  feet  up  to  be  tied,  when  a  covered  wagon  came 
along,  suggests  that  frequent  changes  make  it  easier  to 
adjust  oneself  to  new  situations.  However,  if  the  in- 
dividual repels  the  new  idea  until  it  has  become  a  common 
possession,  and  has  revolutionized  social  institutions  so 
that  they  conform  to  it,  he  comes  by  it  with  a  minimum 
of  effort. 

In  the  social  mind  the  struggle  incident  to  getting  the 
new  idea  is  more  evident.  What  it  has  meant  in  this 
country  to  gain  the  idea  that  the  status  of  manhood  is 
not  determined  by  the  color  of  the  skin,  what  it  means 
still,  needs  no  explanation  to  give  it  vividness.  The  com- 
ing in  of  such  an  idea  means  not  simply  an  adaptation 
of  former  ideas,  but  the  adjustment  of  institutions  to 
which  former  ideas  have  given  rise.  The  thousand  ques- 
tions which  arise  in  the  negro  problem  mean,  each  and 
all,  the  conflict  of  an  idea  with  established  institutions. 
What  this  idea  has  cost  in  terms  of  pain  is  beyond  com- 
putation.    Not  all  ideas  require  such  radical  changes 


H4  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

as  the  one  just  mentioned,  but  a  re-adjustment  must 
be  had  in  each  case. 

It  is  because  of  the  difficulty  of  getting  a  new  idea, 
that  the  man  who  has  spent  a  large  part  of  his  mature 
years  in  advocating  a  cause  in  which  his  life  has  cen- 
tered, is  seldom  able  to  put  the  same  vigor  into  the 
presentation  of  another,  when  this  idea  has  been  accepted. 
Wendell  Phillips,  one  of  the  greatest  exponents  of  the 
abolition  movement,  did  not  show  equal  force  in  any 
other.  Many  men  now  living  have  not  adjusted  them- 
selves to  any  thought  movement  since  the  Civil  War. 
No  later  idea  has  gained  possession  of  their  lives. 

The  same  fact  is  apparent  in  social  institutions.  When 
an  institution  has  grown  up  about  an  idea,  the  institution 
is  seldom  able  to  adapt  itself  to  new  issues.  The  Repub- 
lican Party  was  formed  for  the  restriction  of  slavery  to 
the  existing  slave  territory  and  later  forced  the  amend- 
ments legalizing  the  fact  which  Lincoln  created  by  the 
Emancipation  Proclamation;  but  since  that  issue  was 
out  of  the  way  more  than  a  generation  ago,  no  definite 
idea  has  taken  its  place.  Since  that  time  there  has  been 
no  defined  issue  between  the  leading  parties  but  the 
possession  of  the  offices.  The  Democratic  and  Republican 
Parties  each  stand  for  more  or  less  of  what  the  other 
wants.  Only  the  minor  parties  have  presented  clear 
cut  ideas  and  definite  issues. 

Until  recent  times  the  leading  political  parties  were 
divided  in  regard  to  the  treatment  due  the  negro  race, 
but  that  difference  has  disappeared.  The  union  of  senti- 
ment between  North  and  South  in  connection  with  the 


THE  SOCIAL  MIND  115 

Spanish  War  came  about  because  it  was  recognized  that 
the  leading  party  of  the  North  no  longer  stood  for  the 
equality  of  subject  with  dominant  races.  This  is,  how- 
ever, rather  a  reversion  to  an  old  idea  than  the  accept- 
ance of  a  new  one,  though  it  seems  to  demand  some 
change  in  our  political  institutions  which  have  had  some 
considerable  taint  of  democracy.  History  deals  with  the 
inception  and  development  of  social  ideas. 

These  social  ideas  must  arise  in  a  social  mind  and  it 
may  fairly  be  assumed  that  it  has  the  characteristics  of 
the  mind  of  the  individual.  There  is  evidently  a  certain 
amount  of  social  intelligence,  which  fact  suggests  a  social 
intellect.  Social  feelings  present  themselves  so  forcibly 
to  the  attention,  as  to  leave  little  doubt  of  an  emotional 
element  in  society.  In  support  of  the  assumption  of  a 
social  will,  one  need  not  do  more  than  cite  the  popular 
phrase  "  the  will  of  the  people  "  and  notice  its  working 
in  social  control.  If,  then,  we  find  evidence  of  a  social 
mind,  with  its  phases  of  intellect,  feeling,  and  will,  we 
may  fairly  conclude  that  there  is  a  social  psychology  cor- 
responding, in  great  part,  to  the  psychology  of  the  indi- 
vidual mind.  The  study  of  the  social  mind  will,  there- 
fore fall  under  the  heads  of  knowledge,  feeling,  and  will. 

1.    Social  Knowledge. 

It  has  been  seriously  questioned  whether  the  child  of 
today  comes  into  life  with  any  greater  mental  power  in 
his  possession,  than  belonged  to  the  child  in  Athens  or 
in  Rome.  The  modern  can  produce  a  better  history, 
or  philosophy,  or  machine,  than  was  possible  to  the  indi- 


n6  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

vidual  of  earlier  times.  But  is  this  greater  efficiency  due 
to  superior  individual  capacity,  or  is  it  due  to  the  environ- 
ment in  which  his  work  is  done  ? 

It  may  be  that  his  advantage  over  the  citizen  of  the 
ancient  city,  is  due  less  to  his  individual  superiority  than 
to  the  social  inheritance  which  falls  to  him.  While  the 
intervening  generations  have  passed  away,  they  have  left 
behind  them  the  results  of  their  labors  and  genius  in 
social  knowledge  and  social  institutions.  These  are  the 
earnings  of  the  past,  and  the  tools  which  the  modern 
has  at  hand  with  which  to  begin  his  work.  All  this 
inheritance  from  the  past  is  so  much  fixed  capital  by 
which  the  efficiency  of  the  individual  is  vastly  increased. 

This  is  aside  from  the  matter  of  material  things  in 
which  monopoly  is  having  its  perfect  work.  There  is 
no  trust  formed  in  ideas.  Perhaps  this  statement  should 
be  limited  to  the  extent  of  saying  that  monopoly  of  land 
or  factories  may  raise  a  barrier  to  prevent  the  individual 
from  entering  into  possession  of  our  social  inheritance 
of  knowledge.  If  we  wish  to  travel,  or  to  send  a  mes- 
sage, we  have  the  steam  car,  the  telegraph,  the  telephone ; 
if  we  wish  to  give  an  idea  to  the  world  we  send  it  to 
the  printer.  If  we  wish  to  develop  individual  minds,  we 
find  the  ideas  wrought  out  in  the  storm  and  stress  of 
centuries  in  the  culture  which  we  inhale  as  the  breath 
of  mental  life. 

Social  Ideas. 

Social  ideas  originate  in  the  mind  of  individuals,  and 
are  socialized  through  imitation  and  repetition.    In  child 


THE  SOCIAL  MIND 


117 


life  imitation  has  nearly  the  whole  field.  The  child  is 
given  advice  in  regard  to  conduct  which  it,  in  turn,  hands 
on  to  animate  or  inanimate  playthings,  the  doll  or  the 
cat,  finally  to  the  other  children  with  whom  it  plays. 
When  the  child  plays  house,  it  copies  both  the  words 
and  the  tone  of  its  father  and  mother,  and  in  its  dealing 
with  playmates  seeks  to  rule  them  after  the  fashion  of  its 
own  experience.  He  will  even  bring  in  the  gestures 
which  the  parents  habitually  use  to  enforce  their  orders. 

The  results  of  imitation  are  as  clearly  seen  in  the  life 
of  the  neighborhood.  Each  neighborhood  has  its  own 
language,  differing  in  some  respects  from  any  other. 
Joseph  Parker  said  that  he  could  tell  in  what  English 
county  a  man  was  bred  if  he  could  hear  him  speak.  This 
comes  about  through  imitation  which  constitutes  the  con- 
servative force  in  the  social  life.  While  our  acts  differ 
in  some  respects  from  our  neighbors,  for  the  most  part 
we  imitate  them. 

The  Chinese  are  noted  for  their  imitativeness,  having 
been  trained  to  it  from  birth.  It  is  their  care  and  their 
pride  to  do  as  their  ancestors  have  done.  Under  such 
circumstances  ideas  must  be  common  to  all  and  a  stable 
order  of  things  will  be  secured. 

The  difficulty  arises  when  one  tries  to  bring  in  a  new 
idea.  Men  speak  lightly  of  giving  Western  ideas  to  the 
people  of  the  Orient,  as  if  the  offer  of  the  new  would 
make  them  wish  to  discard  the  old.  The  ideas  of  the 
Chinese  suit  them  quite  as  well  as  American  ideas  suit 
us  and  the  Chinese  have  as  much  unreasoning  pride  in 
their  institutions  as  have  the  Anglo-Saxons,  though  the 


n8  SOCIAL  ETHICS      ' 

Oriental  does  not  show  such  determination  to  force  his 
institutions  upon  unwilling  peoples.  It  is  one  of  the  psy- 
chological defects  of  the  child  races,  which  makes  them 
immune  to  Western  civilization,  that  they  are  not  able 
to  subordinate  all  other  interests  to  those  of  trade.  A 
Western  community  accepts  with  avidity  the  idea  of  a 
railroad  in  their  neighborhood,  but  to  the  Chinese  the 
operations  of  the  road  would  dislocate  social  institutions 
which  have  been  thousands  of  years  in  the  making.  It 
means  little  to  these  people  that  it  will  do  better  work, 
or  more  work,  than  the  old  methods.  It  means  a  mental 
as  well  as  an  industrial  revolution,  the  results  of  which 
neither  they  nor  we  can  foretell. 

But  while  the  habit  of  imitation  dominates  the  Occident 
less  than  the  Orient,  it  is  yet  an  important  factor  in  life. 
It  is  safe  to  say  that  not  more  than  one-tenth  of  the 
voters  of  the  country  are  at  all  affected  by  the  party 
platforms,  or  the  arguments  of  the  campaign.  Nine- 
tenths  of  the  voters  accept  the  candidates  and  the  plat- 
forms which  the  machine  engineers  prepare,  and  the 
knowledge  of  this  fact  makes  politicians  careless  of  criti- 
cism. At  some  distant  period  in  Chinese  history  the 
women  bound  their  feet  and  it  has  been  imitated  until 
it  has  become  a  mark  of  social  distinction;  perhaps  for 
the  same  reason  the  waist  is  bound  in  the  West,  a  custom 
which  is  not  less  prejudicial  to  good  health,  for  though 
its  immediate  results  are  not  so  apparent,  its  final  conse- 
quences are  more  injurious.  It  may  serve  to  temper 
our  judgment  of  the  slower  East  to  notice  how  far  imi- 
tation rules  the  life  of  our  own  community. 


THE  SOCIAL  MIND  "9 

The  Factor  of  Invention, 

The  faculty  of  imitation  gives  the  clue  to  the  formation 
of  social  ideas,  but  it  does  not  explain  how  these  ideas  are 
changed.  This  is  secured  by  invention.  We  are  familiar 
with  inventions  in  machinery  and  understand  that  a 
machine  is  an  idea  embodied  in  wood,  or  iron.  This  idea 
put  into  the  form  of  a  machine  has  the  same  effect  as 
an  idea  elsewhere,  it  drives  out  imitation  at  that  point, 
by  making  the  old  idea  out  of  date.  When  Ericsson 
invented  the  Monitor  the  wooden  vessel  as  a  righting 
machine  was  laid  aside.  For  war  purposes  it  became 
so  much  waste  timber.  When  Whitney  put  his  idea 
into  the  machine  to  gin  cotton,  it  not  only  threw  out 
the  old  methods,  but  it  revolutionized  the  ideas  of  the 
South  in  regard  to  slavery,  preparing  the  way  for  the 
Civil  War.  Inventions  in  philosophical  and  economic 
ideas  also  work  changes  in  the  same  way  as  in  machin- 
ery, though  it  is  not  so  easy  to  trace  their  effects. 

The  more  progressive  the  society,  the  more  readily 
does  it  welcome  the  invention,  or  better,  the  less  it 
opposes  it.  New  ideas  are  always  opposed  and  their 
proposer  is  not  infrequently  sacrificed  to  the  idea  of 
imitation,  because  the  individual  and  the  society  refuse 
to  make  the  reconstruction  which  the  new  idea  would 
demand.  The  ideas  presented  by  Jesus  demanded  then, 
and  demand  still,  the  entire  reconstruction  of  our  ideas 
and  institutions,  therefore  they  are  rejected.  The  social 
mind  has  need  of  the  faculty  of  imitation  to  give  sta- 
bility;   it  needs  the  faculty  of  invention  for  the  sake 


120  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

of  growth.    The  problem  is  to  give  each  its  proper  place 
and  function,  so  that  neither  will  be  in  excess. 

The  Social  Imagination, 

Mr.  Lester  Ward  in  his  "  Psychic  Factors  of  Civiliza- 
tion "  takes  the  ground  that  society  is  still  governed  by 
instinct,  not  having  reached  the  period  of  reason.  Now 
while  it  must  be  admitted  that  the  social  mind  is  not 
always  reasonable,  it  is  still  maintained  that  it  is  given 
to  reasoning,  even  lliough  this  is  not  the  phase  of  mind 
which  is  most  prominent.  The  State  is  more  affected 
by  imagination  than  by  judgment.  Louis  Fourteenth, 
though  his  whole  life  was  acted  in  public,  was  able  to 
impose  upon  the  imagination  of  his  people  so  that  he 
passed  as  a  man  of  imposing  stature,  though  he  was, 
in  fact,  a  little  man.  Napoleon  First  owed  much  of  his 
success  to  his  ability  to  appeal  to  the  French  imagination. 
In  the  battle  of  the  Pyramids  he  reminds  his  soldiers 
that  forgotten  centuries  look  down  upon  them ;  at  Tabor 
he  recalls  the  Transfiguration. 

A  more  recent  evidence  of  the  place  which  the  imag- 
ination has  in  the  social  mind,  was  the  ceremony  in  the 
coronation  of  Edward  Seventh.  To  one  who  has  not 
breathed  the  atmosphere  of  the  traditions  which  cling 
about  royalty  and  a  titled  nobility,  there  was  much  in 
the  details  of  the  proposed  ceremony  which  seemed  a 
proper  setting  for  a  comedy;  yet  for  the  mass  of  the 
English  people  even  the  carefulness  which  prescribed 
what  each  actor  was  to  do,  appealed  strongly  to  the 
imagination.     If  the  king  would  drive  to  Westminster 


THE  SOCIAL  MIND  121 

and  assume  the  crown  with  as  little  ceremony  as  the 
American  President  takes  his  oath  of  office,  he  would 
lose  a  part  of  his  hold  upon  the  people.  As  soon  as 
his  subjects  begin  to  weigh  his  abilities  and  his  char- 
acter as  they  would  those  of  other  men,  his  function  is 
at  an  end.  Measured  by  such  standards,  he  might  well 
exchange  places  with  some  of  his  subjects,  and  such 
would  be  the  conclusion  of  reason.  But  imagination 
clothes  him  with  a  divinity  not  pertaining  to  ordinary 
men. 

It  is  to  call  out  the  imagination  that  the  king  must 
demand  certain  dress  and  ceremony  in  his  court.  Should 
he  allow  his  subjects  to  approach  him  as  other  men, 
the  royal  family  would  need  to  seek  some  other  occu- 
pation. It  is  said  that  the  courtiers  of  Louis  Fourteenth 
did  not  venture  to  look  above  his  shoe  ties,  and  when 
they  reached  intimacy  with  Louis  Sixteenth  they  sent 
him  to  the  guillotine. 

Bagehot  says  somewhere  that  the  royal  family  is  worth 
all  it  costs  the  English  exchequer,  because  of  its  influ- 
ence upon  the  order  of  the  people.  For  the  statesmen 
who  wrangle  in  Parliament,  they  may  lose  respect,  since 
these  appeal  only  to  their  reason;  royalty,  which  rises 
superior  to  debate,  in  whose  name  all  acts  of  Govern- 
ment are  performed,  appeals  to  the  imagination.  The 
most  violent  agitators  who  air  their  grievances  in  Hyde 
Park,  cease  their  denunciations  of  governmental  faults 
to  salute,  with  lifted  hat,  the  member  of  the  royal  family 
that  passes  by. 

One  needs  only  to  point  to  the  crowded  theatres  to 


122  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

prove  that  imagination  has  a  large  place  in  the  minds 
of  the  American  people.  While  other  meetings  are 
poorly  attended,  the  theatre,  which  makes  no  demand 
upon  the  reason,  which  seldom  appeals  to  conscience, 
ministers  to  the  demands  of  the  masses  of  the  people. 

Socials  Habits  and  Ideals. 

Habit  is  the  static  element  in  society;  ideals  are  the 
dynamic.  If  the  former  is  in  excess  we  have  social 
stagnation ;  if  the  latter,  there  is  social  unrest  and  revo- 
lution. Habit  is  the  result  of 'imitation  which  leads  men 
to  think  and  to  act  alike. 

Habit  conserves  social  energy.  It  is  a  fact  to  which 
our  nervous  system  bears  forcible  testimony,  that  while 
frequent  changes  of  program  add  to  the  interest  of  our 
work,  that  it  is  gained  at  the  cost  of  nerve  force.  There 
is  no  way  in  which  work  is  done  so  easily  as  when 
reduced  to  routine.  To  eat,  to  work,  to  sleep  regularly, 
is  the  price  we  must  pay  for  continued  vigor.  As  the 
musician  strives  for  control  of  his  instrument,  his  fin- 
gers become  weary  under  the  continued  strain,  but  as 
the  routine  of  fingering  is  acquired,  the  movement  be- 
comes easy.  So  easily  is  the  movement  executed  that 
he  is  able  to  think  of  other  things  during  the  perform- 
ance. That  is  the  value  of  habit.  It  makes  the  per- 
former a  specialist  in  one  kind  of  work. 

The  same  thing  is  experienced  in  social  duties.  When 
society  is  used  to  doing  a  certain  thing  in  a  certain  way, 
the  work  is  done  with  a  minimum  of  effort.  It  is  the 
universal  custom  in  the  United  States  that  when  two 


THE  SOCIAL  MIND  123 

carriages  meet  on  the  road  each  driver  shall  turn  to  the 
right,  and  it  requires  no  thought  on  his  part  to  take 
that  direction.  But  if  he  were  to  take  a  drive  in  Eng- 
land, where  it  is  customary  to  turn  to  the  left,  it  would 
require  continual  attention  to  avoid  a  collision.  It  would 
cost  no  little  time  and  trouble  if  this  question  of  direction 
had  to  be  decided  whenever  two  carriages  met  on  the 
road. 

A  leading  reason  for  the  unrest  in  the  labor  field  is 
the  unsettled  condition  of  machine  industry.  Inventions 
in  machinery  have  been  so  common  and  the  changes 
introduced  have  beeri  so  radical,  that  workmen  scarcely 
get  adjusted  to  one  condition  when  it  becomes  necessary 
to  meet  another.  By  a  new  invention  the  capital  fixed 
in  certain  forms  becomes  antiquated,  the  skill  which 
workers  have  acquired  becomes  useless.  The  continued 
throwing  of  machinery  into  the  junk  heap,  together 
with  the  displacement  of  the  worker  behind  it,  are  the 
common  features  of  our  feverish  competition.  The  Trust 
introduces  additional  complications  by  its  buying  up 
of  plants  and  leaving  them  idle  to  force  up  prices,  or 
by  running  this  one  or  that  one  as  it  may  be  desired 
to  coerce  the  workers  in  particular  places  into  submis- 
sion. This  makes  a  settled  home  for  the  worker  an 
incumbrance,  since  he  must  follow  his  work,  changing 
the  workers  into  a  restless,  roving  population.  We  are 
in  need  of  industrial  habits.  Mr.  Herbert  Spencer  is 
of  the  opinion  that  we  are  approaching  a  static  condition 
in  industry  when  invention  will  cease,  and  the  different 
factors  in  the  situation  have  an  opportunity  to  adjust 


124  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

themselves.     There  is  little  present  indication  of  such 
a  condition  in  the  future. 

Another  advantage  of  habit  is  that  it  not  only  enables 
us  to  do  our  work  easier,  but  it  makes  possible  a  larger 
output.  A  machine  produces  a  large  amount  of  goods 
because  they  are  all  of  one  pattern,  but  it  can  not  make 
any  other  kind.  The  more  a  man  gets  to  be  like  a  machine, 
the  more  work  he  can  do  of  a  certain  kind.  But  it  may 
be  questioned  if  we  want  men  to  be  like  machines,  even 
with  the  advantage  which  it  gives  in  production.  Ma- 
chines are  not  ends  in  themselves,  do  not  grow.  Men 
are  ends  in  themselves  and  are  designed  to  grow  forever, 
therefore  habit  needs  some  corrective,  if  development 
is  to  have  a  place.  The  State  needs  habits,  needs  to 
specialize  in  certain  lines,  but  it  must  also  universalize. 
It  is  to  provide  for  this  universalizing  process  that  social 
ideals  are  essential. 

The  relation  of  habit  and  ideal  is  of  that  which  is, 
with  that  which  ought  to  be.  The  ideal  is  the  view 
of  the  universal;  habit  is  the  older  ideal  realized  in 
practice.  Progressive  society  is  continually  moving 
from  the  special  to  the  universal ;  from  the  actual  to  the 
ideal.  In  view  of  the  fact  that  there  are  various  ethical 
theories,  it  will  be  advisable  to  examine  some  of  them 
in  order  to  gain  a  clear  and  adequate  definition  of  the 
ideal. 

Kant  held  that  the  universal  was  the  ideal,  and  this 
universal  was  reason.  As  this  reason  was  in  every  man, 
it  was  the  law  to  each,  the  standard  of  his  conduct. 
To  follow  reason  was  righteousness;    to  fail  was  sin. 


THE  SOCIAL  MIND  125 

Now  it  might  seem  that  Kant  had  set  to  man  an  easy 
task,  since  it  was  to  obey  a  law  within  himself,  but 
there  was  another  part  of  the  self  which  refused  this 
obedience.  This  was  man's  senses,  or  feeling,  which  was 
particular.  Thus  reason  was  set  over  against  feeling; 
the  former  admonishing  the  man  to  follow  a  universal 
law,  the  latter  to  satisfy  his  particular  feeling.  Kant 
held  that  the  opposition  between  these  two  parts  of  the 
self  was  so  complete  that  no  reconciliation  was  possible. 
Having  thus  split  the  individual  into  two  warring  sec- 
tions, he  found  no  way  to  gain  peace  except  to  extermin- 
ate one  of  the  parties  to  the  conflict.  He  therefore  de- 
clared that  feeling  must  be  entirely  disregarded,  and 
reason  implicitly  obeyed. 

The  test  of  the  Tightness  of  an  act  lay  in  seeing 
whether  it  might  be  made  universal.  One  should  do  only 
those  acts  which  he  would  have  all  men  do.  If  it  would 
be  right  for  all  men,  then  it  would  be  right  for  the 
individual,  otherwise  the  act  must  be  rejected.  When 
I  do  an  act,  I  therefore  legislate  that  all  should  do  it, 
so  that  I  universalize  the  act.  Duty  should  be  done, 
not  because  we  have  a  desire  to  do  it,  for  that  would 
vitiate  the  act,  but  solely  for  duty's  sake.  If  a  mother 
tended  a  child  because  of  her  love  for  it,  the  act  would 
not  be  good.  She  must  do  it  solely  because  it  is  the 
right  thing  for  all  mothers  to  do.  All  feeling  must  be 
eliminated  from  the  good  act,  and  the  law  obeyed  solely 
because  it  is  the  law. 

The  Utilitarian  thinkers  took  the  other  horn  of  the 
dilemma  by  claiming  that  feeling  was  the  sole  guide  to 


126  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

duty.  Pleasure,  for  one  or  the  crowd,  was  the  good. 
Whatever  gained  pleasure  was  labeled  right;  whatever 
did  not  gain  pleasure  bore  the  brand  of  wrong.  As  all 
must  admit  that  what  is  pleasure  for  one  person,  or  at 
one  time,  may  not  be  pleasure  for  another  person,  or 
for  the  same  person  at  another  time,  the  Utilitarians 
could  not  claim  to  be  following  a  universal  law.  His 
aim  had,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  to  be  a  particular 
pleasure,  since  pleasure  is  not  a  universal.  The  result 
of  the  Utilitarian  theory  is  to  make  the  character  of  the 
act  independent  of  the  character  of  the  actor,  since  the 
only  criterion  is  the  resultant  pleasure  or  pain.  Now 
by  combining  the  truth  in  these  two  extreme  statements 
it  may  be  possible  to  get  a  correct  ideal. 

Neither  theory  takes  the  whole  man  into  account; 
Kant  leaving  out  feeling,  thus  making  action  impossible, 
the  Utilitarian  leaving  out  reason,  thus  affording  no 
rule,  or  law.  As  against  the  former  it  may  be  said  that 
without  feeling  there  would  be  no  act;  as  against  the 
latter  the  act  would  be  without  an  aim.  A  true  theory 
must  take  in  the  whole  man  without  leaving  out  the 
part  which  does  not  seem  to  fit  the  conclusions,  just 
as  the  mathematician  is  not  allowed  to  eliminate  some 
of  the  factors  from  his  problem  for  the  sake  of  simplify- 
ing it.  The  whole  man  must  be  included,  and  each  ele- 
ment given  its  proper  function. 

With  Kant  we  may  hold  that  each  mind  has  within  it 
a  universal  element,  which  is  the  sum  of  truth  already 
revealed,  but  against  him,  that  this  truth  must  have  an 
interest  for  the  mind,  if  it  is  to  move  to  action.     The 


THE  SOCIAL  MIND  127 

difficulty  with  Kant  was  that  he  made  his  ideal  abstract, 
when  he  expurgated  feeling.  The  ideal  is  not  something 
away  from  the  self;  it  is  the  self  idealized.  We  may 
say  that  the  ideal  of  the  Christian  is  Jesus  Christ,  but, 
more  exactly,  it  is  the  Christian  himself  acting  as  he 
thinks  that  Jesus  would  act  in  his  place.  "  What  would 
Jesus  do  ? "  is  his  problem.  When  one  takes  Webster 
as  his  model,  what  is  really  in  his  mind  is  himself  hold- 
ing an  audience  as  he  understands  that  Webster  did. 
When  he  has  an  ideal  of  an  engineer,  it  is  of  himself 
running  an  engine.  What  is  in  his  mind  is  himself 
acting  as  this  other  one  acted.  The  soldier  sees  himself 
returning  from  the  war,  receiving  the  applause  of  the 
crowd.  Make  the  ideal  abstract  as  Kant  did,  and  it  is 
robbed  of  interest.  Make  the  ideal  after  the  Utilitarian 
fashion  and  it  has  no  value. 

The  ideal  of  the  individual  is  himself  fashioned  after 
his  conception  of  Jesus,  rilled  with  an  absorbing  interest 
to  realize  this  conception  in  the  practical  duties  of  life. 
The  social  ideal  of  the  Christian  State  is  the  State  acting 
according  to  the  Spirit  of  its  Lord.  The  individual  ideal 
takes  in  the  whole  man  in  his  every  faculty.  "When 
He  shall  appear  we  shall  be  like  Him."  This  is  the 
universal  which  each  should  seek  to  realize  in  himself, 
thus  becoming  universal  as  He  is.  The  Christian  social 
ideal  is  the  acceptance  of  the  same  aim  by  society. 

With  this  explanation,  it  is  easy  to  see  the  conflict 
between  habits  and  ideals,  the  former  constraining  men 
to  follow  old  customs,  the  latter  demanding  new  stand- 
ards of  living.    Against  the  realization  of  the  social  ideal 


128  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

are  ranked  its  determined  opponents  and  the  mass  of 
indifferent  citizens,  who  are  inclined  to  follow  the  path 
of  least  resistance  wherever  it  leads.  The  latter  class 
must  be  roused  to  an  interest  in  the  ideal  before  it  can 
be  realized  in  the  social  life.  This  requires  the  breaking 
of  old  habits. 

As  in  the  case  of  the  idea,  the  ideal  reaches  the  social 
mind  through  individual  initiative.  It  was  only  as  indi- 
viduals like  Cobden  and  Bright  felt  the  injustice  of 
the  Corn  Laws,  and  set  before  their  minds  a  vision  of 
an  England  whose  laws  would  not  favor  the  rich  as 
against  the  poor,  that  they  were  able  to  put  their  ideal  in 
the  public  mind,  and  compel  the  repeal  of  the  unjust 
measures.  This  transference  of  the  individual  ideal  into 
a  social  ideal  is  the  end  of  each  reformer.  If  he  is  able 
to  project  his  thought  into  the  common  mind,  he  wins 
his  case;  if  it  remains  only  an  individual  .ideal,  he  suf- 
fers defeat.  His  success  depends  on  three  conditions; 
the  earnestness  with  which  he  puts  himself  into  his 
cause,  the  value  of  the  cause  itself  to  the  public^ weal, 
and  the  thoroughness  with  which  the  opposition  is  organ- 
ized 

Wonder  is  sometimes  expressed  at  the  success  which 
some  missionaries  meet,  while  others,  with  an  equally 
earnest  presentation  of  the  same  truth,  reap  but  little 
fruit  from  their  labors.  Missionary  Paton,  with  those 
who  went  before,  and  followed  him,  has  been  able,  in 
large  measures,  to  Christianize  certain  islands  in  the 
New  Hebrides,  while  equal  labor  elsewhere  can  not 
boast  a  hundred  converts.     In  this  case  the  opposing 


THE   SOCIAL   MIND 


129 


forces  were  not  organized.  Had  they  been  followers 
of  Mohammed,  or  Buddha,  with  a  definite  belief,  quite 
other  results  might  have  been  recorded.  Impressionable 
minds  were  found  in  the  New  Hebrides  to  which  the  ideal 
could  be  transferred. 

The  usual  difficulty  which  the  exponent  of  an  unpop- 
ular truth  has  to  face,  is  the  indifference,  rather  than 
the  opposition  of  his  fellows.  They  may  be  ready  to 
admit  that  his  proposition  satisfies  the  Kantian  demand 
of  being  universal,  but  they  have  little  or  no  interest 
in  its  realization.  In  some  way  the  feeling  must  be 
touched  so  that  interest  may  be  roused  in  the  proposed 
reform.  Until  this  is  realized  it  is  not  an  ideal  for 
them,  even  though  they  admit  its  rightfulness.  It  be- 
comes an  ideal  only  when  it  moves  to  action  for  its 
realization.  Lacking  this  interest,  it  remains  an  abstrac- 
tion to  the  citizen. 

There  are  two  things  that  aid  in  forming  a  social  ideal, 
the  logic  of  argument  and  the  logic  of  events.  The 
logic  of  argument  sets  the  intellectual  phase  of  the  ideal 
before  the  public  mind,  but  most  frequently  is  not  able 
to  do  more.  It  requires  the  logic  of  events  to  prove  to 
men  that  they  have  an  interest  which  should  enlist  their 
services  in  the  settlement  of  the  question.  It  is  some 
consolation  to  the  advocate  of  the  unpopular  truth  to 
know  that  history  will  record  the  completion  of  what  he 
has  begun. 

It  has  already  been  suggested  that  there  is  a  measure 
of  pain  in  the  reception  of  an  idea,  and  much  more  is 
this  true  when  an  ideal  is  the  issue.     That  means  not 


i3o  SOCIAL   ETHICS 

only  a  new  intellectual  adjustment,  but  a  new  standard 
of  conduct.  It  is  of  vital  importance  that  a  people  should 
have  an  ideal,  since  without  it  they  might  not  pass  from 
barbarism  to  civilization,  indeed,  without  an  ideal  they 
would  not  constitute  a  people.  It  is  the  ideal  which  gives 
them  unity  of  purpose  and  of  action.  It  may  provide 
for  but  a  limited  development,  as  did  the  culture  of 
Athens,  the  might  of  Rome,  or  the  victories  of  Moham- 
med; or,  it  may  furnish  a  ceaseless  incentive  to  growth 
in  the  realization  of  the  teachings  of  the  Christ.  But 
whether  it  is  low  or  high,  whether  it  provides  the  dynamic 
for  limited  or  infinite  development,  an  ideal  is  an  essential 
of  national  existence.  Happy  is  that  people  whose  pure 
ideal  ever  inspires  heroic  effort  like .  a  trumpet  call ! 

Peoples  have  grown  old  and  died  because  they  reached 
the  bounds  of  their  ideals.  They  reach  the  point  where 
they  cease  to  grow,  and  enfeebled  age  ends  in  death. 
With  the  loss  of  ideal,  all  social  institutions  begin  to  lose 
vitality.  The  people  loses  more  and  more  of  the  quali 
ties  which  gave  unity  and  vigor.  In  the  midst  of  this 
social  decay  the  intelligence  and  genius  of  individuals 
may  still  increase,  but  it  only  lights  up  the  general  decay. 
With  the  failure  of  common  aim,  control  passes  into 
the  hands  of  individuals  who  vainly  seek  by  artificial 
bonds  to  hold  society  together.  The  people  has  become 
a  crowd  of  individuals,  without  purpose  or  future.  Le- 
Bon  closes  his  suggestive  book  on  "  The  Crowd"  with 
this  sentence :  "  To  pass  in  pursuit  of  an  ideal  from  the 
barbarous  to  the  civilized  state,  and  then  to  decline  and 
die,  such  is  the  cycle  of  the  life  of  a  people," 


THE  SOCIAL  MIND  131 

Such  is  the  conclusion  of  M.  LeBon,  living  in  the  midst 
of  a  people  which  has  lost  its  old  faith  and  failed  to  find 
a  new  one.  But  if  the  people  retains  its  faith  in  a  noble 
ideal  such  as  the  New  Testament  sets  before  men,  it 
will  continue  to  give  inspiration  and  aspiration,  increas- 
ing in  force  as  the  ideal  is  realized.  The  American 
patriot  can  scarcely  listen  without  anxiety  to  the  popular 
speech,  which  seems  to  find  the  American  ideal  in  the 
Moloch  of  commercialism. 
'2.    Social  Feeling. 

We  get  an  insight  into  M.  LeBon's  pessimistic  views 
of  the  social  future,  when  we  remember  that  he  believes 
that  modern  society  is  largely  under  the  control  of  feel- 
ing. In  former  times  the  traditional  policies  of  the  Euro- 
pean Governments  were  the  factors  which  shaped  the 
course  of  political  events,  but  now,  he  declares,  the 
actual  control  is  the  voice  of  the  masses.  Kings  have 
only  to  listen  and  obey. 

So  far  the  reader  with  a  democratic  leaning  would 
cheerfully  go  with  M.  LeBon,  but  the  danger  which 
this  author  sees  is  that  the  intellectual  factor  has  so  small 
an  influence  in  the  social  mind.  The  passions  of  the  mob 
are  in  control.  We  may  hope  that  the  condition  of 
France  furnishes  greater  support  for  the  celebrated 
author's  thesis  than  would  conditions  elsewhere,  yet  as 
the  Englishman  recalls  the  London  celebrations  of  the 
relief  of  Mafeking  and  Kimberley,  and  as  the  American 
reads  his  weekly  account  of  horrible  executions  by  the 
mob,  it  does  not  appear  that  others  have  great  cause  for 
complacency. 


132  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

Yet  in  spite  of  the  contention  of  many  writers,  with 
due  regard  for  the  passionate  outbursts  which  are  brought 
so  frequently  to  our  notice,  taking  into  account  that 
civilization  is  frequently  only  a  conventional  fig  leaf 
for  the  "form  of  tiger  or  of  ape,"  yet  it  may  be  main- 
tained that  though  feeling  is  dominant,  intelligence  is 
not  eclipsed. 

A  ready  illustration  of  how  feeling  becomes  the  dom- 
inant factor  in  the  social  mind  is  found  in  the  incidents 
following  the  blowing  up  of  the  Maine  in  the  harbor 
of  Havana.  In  the  midst  of  the  investigation  of  the 
location  of  the  explosive  which  wrecked  the  vessel;  in 
disregard  of  the  assurance  of  Minister  Woodford  at 
Madrid  that  the  whole  affair,  even  to  the  granting  of 
independence  to  Cuba,  might  be  settled  by  diplomatic 
methods;  in  opposition  to  the  wishes  of  the  President, 
the  passionate  demand  for  revenge  hurried  the  country 
into  war.  This  course  forever  shielded  the  authors  of 
the  outrage  and  brought  the  penalty  upon  those  who 
were  innocent  of  the  crime.  It  was  one  of  the  occasions 
when  reason  was  set  aside  and  feeling  ruled  the  hour. 
This  is  evident  alike  to  those  who  approve  and  those 
who  condemn  the  declaration  of  war.  Feeling  at  times 
gets  at  right  conclusions  when  reasons  hesitates  and  fails, 
but  unmediated  feeling  is  not  a  safe  guide. 

Feeling  holds  a  larger  relative  place  in  childhood 
than  in  later  years,  and  the  same  development  of  ration- 
ality may  be  noted,  unless  in  exceptional  cases,  among 
progressive  peoples.  Such  a  movement  as  the  Crusades 
would  be  an  utter  impossibility  today.    Indeed  it  is  quite 


THE  SOCIAL  MIND  133 

impossible  for  us  to  place  ourselves  amid  the  Crusaders' 
surroundings  and  understand  how  the  peasants  and  the 
kings,  the  feeble  children  and  the  scarred  warriors  were 
alike  seized  by  the  impulse  to  place  the  cross  upon  their 
garments,   if  not   in  their  hearts,  and  hasten  by  land 
or  sea  toward  the  Holy  Sepulcher.    Nor  was  it  a  single 
impulse,   since  it  held  the  attention  of  Europe  during 
three   centuries.     It  was  a  strange   waste   of  life  and 
treasure  to  gain  an  empty  tomb  when  its  living  occupant 
was  as  surely  present  at  Paris  as  at  Jerusalem.     But 
even  though  the  object  sought  was  of  little  value,  yet  it 
was  well  that  Europe  should  be  united  for  any  common 
purpose  other  than  "  beauty  and  booty."    The  theological 
age  has  passed  in  which  it  was  possible  to  excite  a  com- 
mon interest  for  such  an  end  as  the  winning  of  a  tomb. 
The  recent  death  of  Queen  Victoria  awakened  a  com- 
mon feeling  of  sorrow  through  a  great  part  of  the  world. 
Her  long  reign,  her  worthy  character,  the  apparent  fact 
that  her  life  was  shortened  by  her  sorrow  on  account 
of  the  war  in  which  England  was  engaged,  all  united 
to  enlist  a  common  feeling  of  sympathy.     The  distress 
of  the  people  of  India  through  the  famine,  appealed  to 
the  sympathy  of  all  classes  in  many  countries,  and  moved 
men    to    make    provision    for   the    starving   peasantry. 
Events  such  as  these  have  effects  that  are  not  limited 
by  political  boundaries  and  indicate  the  kinship  of  human- 
ity.    But  as  is  usually  the  case,  the  extension  of  the 
feeling  lessens  its  intensity. 

Neither   of   these   events   caused   the   deep   grief    in 
America  which  was  felt  on  the  death  of  President  Lin- 


134  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

coin.  But  a  few  days  before,  the  people  had  rejoiced 
over  the  end  of  the  most  terrible  of  modern  wars  but 
before  the  news  from  Appomatox  had  become  a  com- 
monplace, the  smiles  were  changed  to  tears  over  the 
death  of  the  man  with  whom  they  had  waded  the  deep 
waters  of  the  Civil  War.  The  sorrow  was  greater 
through  the  preceding  rejoicing.  Our  country  never 
mourned  so  sincerely  for  any  man  as  for  the  one  who 
lies  at  Springfield.  More  than  other  men,  in  his  birth 
and  in  his  life  with  all  its  trials  he  had  been  one  of  the 
people.  The  defeated  South  mourned,  as  it  had  lost, 
a  friend.  Joy  or  sorrow  is  not  life,  but  only  the  expres- 
sion of  it  and  where  there  is  found  a  community  of 
feeling  it  evidences  a  common  life. 

Feeling  is  contagious.  If  one  wishes  to  communicate 
ideas  it  is  best  done  by  close  contact  with  a  few ;  feelings 
may  be  reached  most  easily  in  the  crowded  house.  Not 
only  is  the  feeling  passed  like  an  electric  shock  from  one 
to  another,  but  it  becomes  more  intense  as  it  spreads. 
Men  will  be  moved  to  action  in  the  crowded  audience 
which  they  can  scarcely  explain  themselves  in  cooler 
moments.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  a  community  resolves 
itself  into  a  mob  and  perpetrates  acts  which  would  shock 
the  most  hardened  criminal  in  the  neighborhood.  Some 
of  the  mob  which  spread  terror  through  the  streets  of 
Paris  in  the  Revolution  were  gentle  and  inoffensive 
at  other  times.  The  feelings  of  the  crowd  had  trans- 
formed them  for  the  time.  It  is  said  that  at  one  of 
Whitfield's  preaching  services,  where  an  immense  audi- 
ence had  been  gathered  in  the  field,  a  woman  was  found 


THE  SOCIAL  MIND  135 

on  the  outskirts  of  the  crowd,  weeping  in  sympathy, 
though  beyond  the  reach  of  the  great  preacher's  words. 
On  being  asked  why  she  wept  when  she  could  not  hear 
the  sermon,  she  answered  that  it  was  because  of  His  holy 
gestures.  The  fact  was  that  she  had  been  moved  to 
intense  feeling  by  the  feeling  of  the  crowd. 

The  criticism  has  already  been  passed  upon  the  ethical 
theory  which  finds  its  criterion  of  conduct  in  feeling,  that 
it  really  leaves  us  without  any  standard  at  all.  Feeling 
it  fitful.  When  the  English  rang  the  bells  of  London 
to  express  their  joy  at  the  declaration  of  war  against 
Spain  in  1739  Walpole  said:  "  You  are  ringing  the  bells 
now,  but  you  will  soon  be  wringing  your  hands,"  a  pro- 
phecy of  speedy  fulfillment.  One  may  see  a  missionary 
pleading  the  needs  of  the  heathen  in  a  way  that  brings 
tears  to  the  eyes  of  his  audience,  and  notice  the  emotion 
disappear  on  the  approach  of  the  collection  basket.  Feel- 
ing which  finds  its  end  in  itself,  as  such  emotion  does, 
has  no  social  value.  There  can  be  no  action  without 
feeling ;  there  can  be  no  direction  of  the  feeling  without 
ideas. 

A  common  feeling  may  lead  to  deeds  of  heroism,  or 
to  the  most  abhorrent  acts.  The  members  of  the  French 
aristocracy,  who  had  held  tenaciously  to  every  privilege 
gained  through  the  centuries,  acted  as  one  man  in  their 
surrender  of  them  all  on  the  night  of  August  Fourth, 
1789,  not,  probably,  because  all  were  ready  for  that  sacri- 
fice, but  because  of  the  feeling  of  the  moment.  The  con- 
tagion of  the  act  swept  away  individual  scruples  in  regard 
to  it.     One  who  has  felt  upon  him  the  magnetism  of  a 


i36  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

great  crowd,  can  understand  how  it  would  lift  or  lower 
him  beyond  himself.  It  is  very  difficult  for  the  individual 
to  resist  the  feeling  which  obtains  in  his  time  and  coun- 
try, and  it  is  done  at  great  personal  cost. 

The  Social  Will. 

It  has  been  already  stated  that  knowledge,  feeling,  and 
will  are  the  three  phases  of  mind,  which,  for  purpose  of 
analysis,  we  look  at  separately,  but  which  are  always 
one  in  fact.  It  is  in  point  at  this  stage  in  the  discussion 
to  notice  the  place  of  each.  Knowledge  is  the  objective, 
the  universal  element,  since  it  is  everywhere  and  open 
to  all.  Knowledge  is  finally  truth,  which  has  no  bound- 
aries. Feeling  is  at  the  opposite  mental  pole  from  knowl- 
edge. While  all  societies  and  all  individuals  may  have 
the  same  knowledge,  each  individual  and  each  people  has 
a  feeling  not  experienced  by  any  other.  Thus  feeling 
is  subjective  and  particular.  But  if  we  stopped  with 
these  two  elements,  the  universal  and  the  particular, 
the  objective  and  the  subjective,  we  would  not  have 
the  elements  that  make  up  conduct.  These  two  elements 
must  be  brought  into  connection.  This  is  the  function  of 
the  will. 

The  will  mediates  between  these  two  phases  of  the 
self,  and  unites  the  self  in  an  act.  The  idea  by  itself 
would  have  no  force;  the  feeling  by  itself  might  give 
movement  but  not  conduct.  It  is  the  will  which  brings 
the  whole  self  together  and  puts  it  into  the  act.  Hegel 
treated  the  will  as  the  self,  but  it  may  readily  be  seen  that 
it  is  that  phase  of  the  self  most  prominent  in  the  act. 


THE  SOCIAL  MIND  137 

The  respective  functions  of  knowledge,  feeling,  and 
will  may  be  easily  grasped  by  considering  the  psychology 
of  an  audience.  The  speaker  presents  certain  ideas  which 
he  wishes  the  audience  to  accept  as  true,  but  it  is  possible 
to  have  gained  this  much  without  advantage  either  to 
speaker  or  audience.  It  is  the  hope  of  the  speaker  that 
his  thought  may  be  so  vivid  that  it  will  awaken  a  feeling, 
create  an  interest  in  the  idea  as  something  of  value  to 
them.  But  it  is  possible  for  the  speaker  to  awaken 
feeling  without  the  completion  of  an  act.  Many  men 
have  wept  for  the  faults  which  they  did  not  will  to 
give  up.  It  was  once  said  of  Henry  Clay  that  he  could 
win  more  cheers  and  fewer  votes  than  any  other  cam- 
paigner of  his  day.  What  is  yet  lacking  is  that  the  will 
shall  couple  the  idea  with  the  feeling,  resulting  in  a 
deed.  It  is  true  that  failure  may  intrude  at  any  one  of 
these  three  points.  The  people  may  fail  to  get  the  idea, 
getting  the  idea  it  may  have  no  interest  for  them,  even 
with  this  interest  it  may  be  of  too  weak  a  nature  to  lead 
to  the  willing  of  an  act.  The  one  who  would  move 
the  social  mind  to  deeds,  must  have  in  his  own  mind 
the  psychological  process  which  must  be  gone  through. 

This  process  finds  some  illustration  in  the  present 
stage  of  the  saloon  issue.  For  many  years  the  tem- 
perance advocates  have  been  presenting  facts  and  argu- 
ments so  that  the  social  mind  might  not  lack  for 
knowledge  of  the  subject,  and  while  feeling  has  been 
stirred  on  the  matter  it  has  not  become  an  issue  in  which 
there  is  deep  and  general  interest.  Reformers  are  some 
times  blamed  for  the  terrible  pictures  which  they  draw 


138  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

of  the  consequences  of  social  vice,  but  they  are  seeking 
to  induce  social  feeling  without  which  there  can  not  be 
social  action.  It  is  necessary  that  the  State  should  feel, 
and  feel  intensely  on  the  subject  before  the  abolition  of 
the  saloon  can  be  willed.  Many  individuals  have  thought, 
and  felt,  and  willed  already,  but  the  State  has  not. 

This  psychological  process  suggested  here  is  what  is 
known,  in  common  speech,  as  making  up  one's  mind. 
In  the  case  of  the  individual,  this  usually  takes  so  little 
time  that  we  are  scarcely  conscious  of  any  psychological 
process,  but  the  social  mind  does  not  so  quickly  arrive 
at  conclusions.  The  debate  on  the  question  of  slavery 
in  the  United  States  can  be  readily  traced  during  a  cen- 
tury, though  it  could  not  be  called  an  issue  more  than 
one-quarter  of  that  period.  The  discussion  of  the  larger 
issue  of  the  liquor  traffic  goes  back  to  the  earliest  records, 
but  has  been  a  political  issue  in  United  States  for  fifty 
years.  It  may  be  said  that  the  State  has  willed  the 
license  system  as  a  settlement  of  the  liquor  problem,  but 
since  so  many  citizens  refuse  to  accept  this  settlement 
as  final,  the  social  mind  is  urged  to  other  conclusions. 

Many  of  the  acts  of  the  State  are  subconscious,  that 
is,  they  have  been  worked  out  in  individual  minds,  but 
the  social  mind  has  not  gone  through  the  process.  We 
may  fairly  view  the  act  as  socially  subconscious  when 
certain  individuals  prepare  the  issue,  select  the  candidates, 
and  then,  by  means  with  which  we  are  familiar,  gain 
a  ratification  of  their  work  by  the  public.  It  is  a  kind 
of  political  hypnotism  in  which  the  "  boss  "  tries  to  keep 
the  public  from  seeing  the  real  issues  of  the  moment, 


THE  SOCIAL  MIND  i3q 

by  appeals  to  partisan  prejudice,  or  other  means  to  gain 
his  end.  An  able  English  publicist  has  recently  con- 
gratulated us  on  the  campaign  of  1896,  in  which,  as  he 
thinks,  the  people  were  instructed  in  a  very  difficult 
economic  problem  so  that  they  were  enabled  to  reach 
a  right  conclusion.  Now  while  we  would  fain  take  to 
ourselves  all  the  praise  which  our  English  admirer  gives, 
justice  demands  that  we  should  confess  that  the  public 
know  but  little  of  the  merits  of  the  money  question  even 
yet.  The  most  difficult  subject  with  which  the  trained 
economist  has  to  deal,  can  not  be  explained  to  an  average 
audience  in  an  hour  amid  red  fire  and  torchlight  pro- 
cessions. Whether  one  approves  or  disapproves  the 
decision  of  the  campaign,  he  will  scarcely  hold  that  the 
public  were  thoroughly  instructed  on  theories  of  value 
when  he  recalls  the  character  of  the  discussions  in  the 
press  and  on  the  platform. 

When  the  social  mind  consciously  chooses  all  the  ends 
of  action,  there  will  be  no  more  place  for  the  machine 
politician.  His  object  is  to  direct  social  energies  to 
the  accomplishing  of  private  ends,  and  when  the  State 
becomes  thoroughly  conscious  of  itself  in  its  acts,  it  will 
not  minister  to  individual  ends.  We  have  specific  pro- 
hibitions of  class  legislation  in  some  of  our  Common- 
wealths, yet  most  of  our  laws  are  made  by  and  for  a 
class.  The  occasional  revolutions  which  take  place  in  po- 
litical campaigns,  which  result  in  the  dethroning  of  some 
politician,  come  about  through  the  conscious  action  of 
the  social  mind.  The  reason  why  such  movements  bear 
little  fruit  is  that  the  mind  returns  to  subconsciousness. 


140  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

The  will  of  the  State,  which  is  a  recognized  fact  even 
in  popular  speech,  is  an  evidence  of  the  spiritual  character 
of  the  State.  It  is  because  it  has  a  will  that  it  has 
responsibility,  and  is  held  to  account  for  its  actions  both 
at  home  and  abroad.  It  is,  then,  the  chief  interest  of  the 
patriot  to  educate  the  social  mind  so  that  the  will  of  the 
State  may  be  brought  into  loyal  concurrence  with  the 
will  of  God. 


The  Crowd,  Le  Bon;  Psychology,  Dewey;  Social  and  Ethical 
Interpretations,  Baldwin ;  Psychic  Factors  of  Civilization,  Ward ; 
Democracy  and  Empire,  Giddings  (pp.  27-67)  ;  Introduction  to 
the  Study  of  Sociology,  Stuckenberg  (pp.  115-233)  ;  An  Intro- 
duction to  Sociology,  Fairbanks  (pp.  76-91)- 


THE  SOCIAL  CONSCIENCE 

Professor  Dewey  has  defined  conscience  as  the  intel- 
ligence applied  to  moral  questions.  Conscience,  by  this 
definition,  is  not  some  separate  faculty  of  mind,  nor  is 
it  a  peculiar  kind  of  mental  activity.  Conscience  is  char- 
acter, the  intelligent  self,  deciding  moral  questions.  Men- 
tal activity  comes  properly  under  the  name  of  conscience 
when  questions  of  right  and  wrong  are  involved  in  the 
subject-matter.  For  instance,  social  intelligence,  which 
always  includes  all  moral  attainments,  is  concerned  in  the 
determination  of  the  time  of  an  eclipse,  but  that  fore- 
casting is  not  a  matter  with  which  conscience  deals.  But 
if,  on  the  other  hand,  a  matter  of  human  welfare  was 
at  issue,  conscience  would  come  in  as  a  factor  in  the 
settlement  of  it. 

From  this  it  is  evident  that  the  growth  of  social  intelli- 
gence will  make  greater  demands  upon  conscience.  In 
the  older  and  more  simple  forms  of  society,  their  problems 
were  mainly  of  the  neighborhood,  since  they  knew  and 
cared  little  for  the  larger  world  beyond  the  horizon.  In 
the  complexity  of  modern  life,  where  the  division  of 
labor  has  made  us  dependent  on  a  thousand  agents  for 
our  daily  food,  when  each  man  becomes  a  producer  for 
a  world  market  so  that  he  is  involved  in  questions  as 
universal  as  human  kind,  conscience  is  called  into  con- 
tinual  activity.     When  occupations  are   few  and  each 

141 


142  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

man  produces  what  he  consumes,  daily  life  becomes  a 
routine  of  duties  into  which  conscience  scarcely  intrudes. 
The  habitual  ceases  to  be  the  conscientious  and  if  it  were 
possible  to  reduce  action  to  the  simple  repetition  of  iden- 
tical acts,  conscience  might  retire  from  the  field  of  social 
control. 

Conscience  and  Habit. 

Some  attention  was  given  in  the  discussion  of  the  social 
mind,  to  the  value  of  habit  in  giving  ease  of  execution. 
It  is  for  this  reason  that  division  of  labor,  which  makes 
the  specialist  possible,  increases  mechanical  efficiency.  A 
few  cities  of  Massachusetts  have  specialized  in  the  shoe 
industry  so  that  the  artisans  have  special  capability  in 
the  making  of  shoes.  Instead  of  having  to  consider 
each  particular  act  in  the  process,  it  has  become  a  routine 
which  they  can  follow,  for  the  most  part,  mechanically. 
Now  it  is  suggested  that  this  illustration  from  the  fac- 
tory shows  how  moral  judgments  are  reduced  to  routine. 
In  any  community  the  major  part  of  the  acts  have  been 
repeated  so  often  that  the  question  of  their  rightfulness 
is  not  raised  in  the  mind  when  they  are  performed.  One 
ceases  to  reflect  upon  a  moral  act,  just  as  upon  a  mechan- 
ical act,  when  it  has  become  habitual.  It  is  in  this  way 
that  a  community  becomes  specialized  on  a  certain  kind 
of  moral  judgment.  When  the  act  was  first  performed, 
conscience  would  be  operative,  doubtless  some  question 
would  be  raised  during  its  earlier  repetitions,  but  later 
it  is  4cne  as  a  matter  of  course. 

The  advantage  of  habit  in  the  making  of  shoes  has  its 


THE  SOCIAL  CONSCIENCE  143 

correspondent  advantage  in  the  passing  of  moral  judg- 
ments. If  each  particular  act  in  process  of  shaping  and 
sewing  the  leather  had  to  be  turned  over  in  the  mind, 
it  would  result  in  reducing  the  output  of  shoes;  also 
if  the  individual  had  to  reflect  upon  each  act  which  he 
performs  in  the  sphere  of  morals,  he  would  not  accom- 
plish much.  There  is  need  for  moral  habits  in  which  con- 
science is  mainly  inactive,  as  well  as  for  habits  in  other 
matters.  When  the  individual  analyzes  his  own  conduct 
he  finds  that  by  far  the  greater  part  comes  under  habit. 
This  means  that  he  is  a  specialist  in  certain  kinds  of 
moral  judgments,  as  the  factory  hand  is  in  the  making 
of  a  certain  article. 

.While  this  has  its  advantage,  its  disadvantage  is  no 
less  evident.  So  long  as  the  mechanic  finds  occupation 
in  that  line  in  which  he  has  specialized,  all  goes  well; 
but  the  time  comes  when  a  new  position  must  be  taken, 
and  new  methods  used,  which  he  must  learn.  So  the 
individual,  who  has  followed  a  routine  of  duty,  finds 
a  new  situation;  he  tries  to  meet  it  by  the  old  rule,  but 
something  tells  him  that  his  act  does  not  meet  the  situa- 
tion. His  new  intelligence  shows  him  a  broader  field, 
a  more  complex  situation  than  he  had  known  before. 
Conscience  is  calling  upon  him  to  take  in  a  fuller  meaning 
of  the  act  than  before,  to  generalize  instead  of  special- 
izing. 

Conscience  Generalises. 

There  was  a  time  when  men  conscientiously  thought 
that  slavery  was  right,  that  they  did  their  whole  duty 


144  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

when  they  fed  and  clothed  the  body  of  the  worker;  hut 
the  time  came  when  they  learned  that  the  spirit  in  that 
body  had  to  be  considered.  New  knowledge  of  the  facts 
in  the  case  demanded  a  new  line  of  conduct.  With  the 
former  knowledge,  the  old  habitual  conduct  had  passed 
without  question;  the  enlightened  mind  condemns  it 
as  wrong.  The  old  was  too  narrow,  too  specialized,  to 
fit  the  present  demands.  The  faulty  act  is  the  one  which 
fails  to  take  into  account  the  whole  individual,  and 
the  whole  situation  in  which  he  acts.  A  perfect  knowl- 
edge of  self  and  of  the  whole  situation,  combined  with 
a  perfect  adjustment  of  the  self  to  the  situation,  would 
result  in  perfect  action.  A  failure  in  either  of  these 
respects  leaves  the  resulting  act  defective.  Specialization 
reduces  our  conduct  to  routine,  and  saves  us  the  trouble 
of  thinking  out  each  particular  act ;  yet  unless  some  cor- 
rective is  introduced  there  could  be  no  progress  in  life. 
Conscience  furnishes  this  corrective  by  showing  that  the 
former  acts  were  based  upon  a  partial  understanding. 
It  is  the  rebuke  of  the  broader  life  to  the  narrower,  of 
the  new  ideal  to  the  old.  When  the  new  standard  of 
action  is  accepted,  and  conduct  adjusted  to  it,  then  a 
habit  is  formed  on  the  new  plane  of  action.  Thus,  unless 
the  life  is  to  become  fixed,  it  is  necessary  that  increasing 
intelligence  of  duty  to  God  and  men  should  continually 
act  as  a  rebuke  upon  the  past  life.  In  this  way  the 
individual  is  brought  into  the  higher  and  broader  view 
of  life. 

This  may  have  concrete  illustration  in  the  growth  of 
conscience  on  the  question  of  temperance.     It  is  within 


THE  SOCIAL  CONSCIENCE  145 

the  memory  of  those  still  living  that  liquor  found  its 
place  upon  the  table  and  in  the  closet  of  the  most  con- 
scientious people.  According  to  the  intelligence  of  the 
time,  this  conduct  appeared  commendable,  therefore  it 
became  habitual.  But  as  the  evil  results  of  the  drinking 
habit  were  more  clearly  seen,  these  results  were  taken 
into  consideration  when  the  matter  was  thought  over, 
and  as  a  result  a  large  class  became  total  abstainers.  At 
first  this  required  some  struggle  on  the  part  of  the  indi- 
viduals who  thus  took  the  broader  view  of  life,  but  with 
the  years,  total  abstinence  became  as  firmly  fixed  as  a 
habit,  as  drinking  had  been  before. 

Then  the  penologist  investigated  the  causes  of  crime, 
tracing  the  greater  portion  of  it  to  drink ;  the  economist 
showed  the  immense  waste  of  wealth  by  the  same  agency ; 
the  scientist  demonstrated  that  alcohol  was  a  poison, — 
all  these  facts  were  brought  into  the  individual  intelli- 
gence causing  him  to  decide  that  his  course  of  action 
had  been  faulty.  Now  conscience  incites  him  to  insist 
upon  the  social  prohibition  of  the  traffic. 

This  shows  how  conscience  gains  the  broader  outlook 
and  insists  that  conduct  shall  conform  to  it.  The  new 
outlook  is  in  fact  the  new  self,  which  condemns  the  old 
self  of  yesterday.  The  old  act,  probably,  seemed  right 
at  the  time,  but  with  the  new  light  it  is  seen  to  be  wrong. 
Conscience  is  the  moral  dynamic  in  life.  It  moves  the 
world. 

The  Social  Conscience. 

Some  space  has  been  given  to  the  discussion  of  the 


146  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

individual  conscience  because  it  provides  an  easy  in-, 
troduction  to  the  study  of  the  social  conscience.  In 
both  cases,  the  individual  and  the  social,  the  elements 
to  be  considered  and  the  process  of  getting  results  are 
the  same.  In  society  a  social  judgment  affords  a  prece- 
dent for  like  judgments  on  similar  cases,  and  a  social 
habit  is  formed.  This  is  the  conservative  element  in 
the  social  life.  But  as  the  social  mind  develops  in  knowl- 
edge of  social  responsibility  and  of  the  field  of  operations, 
the  old  habit  is  seen  to  be  defective.  It  fails  to  satisfy 
the  conditions.  The  social  conscience  now  insists  on 
the  correction  of  social  habits  up  to  the  new  standard. 
The  social  conscience  of  the  English  people  judged  a 
man  to  the  gallows  two  hundred  years  ago  for  stealing 
a  few  shillings;  now  the  life  of  the  accused  is  carefully 
guarded  by  the  jury  trial,  even  when  human  life  has 
been  taken.  The  social  conscience  approved  the  execu- 
tion of  the  man  who  stole  a  sheep,  then,  as  certainly 
as  it  approves  today  when  he  has  been  convicted  of 
murder.  The  fuller  knowledge  of  the  value  of  human 
life  has  given  a  new  standard  to  the  social  conscience. 
The  difference  is  that  the  case  of  the  criminal  is  looked 
at  now  in  a  more  universal  way.  In  former  times  he 
was  seen  only  in  one  aspect, — as  a  disturber  of  the  peace 
that  ought  to  be  gotten  out  of  the  way ;  while  the  grow- 
ing intelligence  has  discovered  that  each  individual  has 
a  social  value,  and  also  that  society,  which  has  furnished 
the  environment  of  the  criminal,  is  in  part  responsible 
for  "his  fault.  The  social  conscience  would  now  revolt 
at  an  action  which  was  thought  commendable  in  former 


THE  SOCIAL  CONSCIENCE  147 

days.  All  this  means  that  society  is  gaining  a  more 
universal  view  of  the  act. 

The  time  will  doubtless  come  when  it  will  be  seen  that 
the  idea  of  licensing  the  sale  of  liquor  and  then  the 
punishing  of  the  man  who  commits  a  crime  under  its 
influence,  is  an  exceedingly  narrow  conception  of  social 
duty.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  each  act  has  a  universal 
character  when  we  are  able  to  see  it  in  all  its  bearings. 
In  our  lack  of  intelligence  we  look  upon  it  as  unrelated ; 
yet  if  society  is  organic,  the  act  has  vital  relations  to  the 
whole  universe  in  which  it  takes  place.  To  perform  the 
act  perfectly  it  must  be  understood  in  all  these  relation- 
ships, so  that  perfection  belongs  to  God  only,  since  He 
alone  has  complete  knowledge;  but  the  individual  and 
society  are  alike  under  orders  to  gain  the  universal 
view.  "  Be  ye  perfect  as  your  Father  which  is  in  heaven 
is  perfect." 

Selfishness  is  sinfulness,  since  it  consists  in  getting 
a  narrow  view  of  the  act,  or,  what  is  the  same  thing, 
in  getting  a  narrow  view  of  the  self.  Very  much  of 
the  statute  law  of  the  different  States  of  the  world  is 
vitiated  by  this  fact.  It  is  drawn  in  favor  of  a  particular 
class  within  the  State,  or  it  is  drawn  without  regard  to  its 
effects  on  other  States,  yes  even  favored  because  it  will 
injure  other  States.  One  would  need  only  to  look  over 
the  records  of  Congress  to  find  certain  laws  favored  be- 
cause they  would  injure  foreign  workmen,  therefore, 
wonderful  to  relate,  they  would  benefit  our  own.  Spe- 
cializing has  its  place  in  ethics  so  that  we  may  form 
habits,  but  we  are  in  no  danger  of  having  too  few. 


148  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

The  defects  in  social  conduct  are  due  to  the  lack  of 
generalization.     Society  fails  to  take  in  the  whole  situa- 
tion, therefore  social  action  is  partial  in  character. 
The  Tribal  Conscience. 

The  difference  between  the  tribal  conscience  and  what 
has  been  treated  in  the  preceding  pages  as  the  reflective 
conscience,  is  mainly  in  the  place  which  the  ideal  occupies. 
The  reflective  conscience,  whose  ideal  lies  in  the  future, 
makes  its  appeal  to  men  to  change  their  conduct  so  that 
it  may  agree  with  the  broader  view  of  life  which  in- 
telligence has  gained.  The  tribal  conscience,  which  has 
its  ideal  in  the  past,  makes  its  demand  upon  present 
conduct  to  conform  to  the  past.  The  reflective  conscience 
was  not  an  important  factor  in  the  social  movement  until 
it  was  trained  by  Christianity;  the  tribal  conscience  was 
prevalent  under  the  heathen  faiths. 

Between  these  two  conceptions,  the  ethics  of  the  present 

day  seems  to  be  seeking  a  middle  ground  in  the  idea  of 

natural   selection,    which   insists    on    conformity   to   the 

things  as  they  are.     In  this  last  view  the  ideal  is  the 

i 
actual.     In  the  case  of  the  tribal  conscience,  the  ideal 

is  the  ancient,  so  it  was  that  the  Greeks  looked  backward 
to  the  Elysian  Fields  and  the  time  when  the  gods  walked 
upon  the  earth.  The  reflective  conscience  insists  that 
the  ideal  has  not  yet  been  reached.  It  is  the  ought-to-be. 
Thus  we  have  the  three  ideals  of  the  past,  the  present, 
or  the  future,  as  the  dominant  influence  upon  the  con- 
science at  each  of  the  different  periods  in  history.  This 
gives  us  three  conceptions  of  duty;  to  conform  to  what 
has  been,  to  what  is,  or  to  what  ought  to  be. 


THE  SOCIAL  CONSCIENCE  149 

It  has  been  said  that  order  is  Heaven's  first  law;  it 
certainly  is  man's  first  need.  It  is  for  this  reason,  doubt- 
less, that  some  form  of  government  always  exists,  how- 
ever intolerable  it  may  be.  Order  must  precede  pro- 
gress, since  it  is  essential  to  have  something  secured 
before  it  is  possible  to  strive  for  anything  better.  Plato 
was  willing  to  sacrifice  important  social  interests  for  the 
sake  of  gaining  order,  even  though  it  meant  much  loss 
in  other  regards.  In  the  Grecian  and  the  Roman  systems 
it  was  believed  that  the  existing  state  of  things  had 
been  sanctioned  by  the  gods ;  therefore  it  was  sacred. 
He  that  proposed  change  was  liable  to  be  charged  with 
impiety. 

The  king,  the  priests,  the  customs  of  the  people,  each 
and  all  rested  on  the  will  of  the  gods,  without  whose 
direction  through  the  auspices,  no  important  work  was 
undertaken.  Under  such  conditions  the  citizen  did  not 
presume  to  criticise  the  laws,  and  Socrates  does  not 
question  the  justice  of  his  death  sentence  because  he 
was  a  bringer-in  of  strange  gods.  According  to  the  tribal 
conscience  such  a  deed  made  the  doer  a  public  enemy, 
since  he  justified  the  wrath  of  the  gods  against  his  native 
city. 

The  Place  of  the  Individual. 

The  age  had  little  place  for  the  individual,  even  less 
for  individual  opinion,  since  it  was  the  proper  thing 
for  each  man  to  think  as  his  fathers  thought.  He  must 
stand  with  his  face  to  the  past  and  reproduce  their  con- 
duct in  his  own  life.     Uniformitv  was  the  divine  and 


150  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

human  order  of  the  day.  Bagehot  calls  this  the  period  of 
nation-making,  when  through  the  habit  of  imitation  each 
individual  was  a  reduced  image  of  his  community,  the 
community  only  a  larger  man.  For  individuality  there 
was  little  provision.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  the  tribal 
conscience,  though  it  served  a  temporary  phase  of  the 
social  need  by  inducing  order,  becomes  a  hindrance  in 
later  times. 

The  reason  for  this  is  that  while  the  tribal  conscience 
provided  for  order  by  compelling  uniformity  through 
devotion  to  the  past,  it  by  this  very  means  barred  the 
yoad  of  progress.  It  gained  law,  but  shut  out  freedom. 
The  law  and  the  legal  procedure  had  been  given  by  and 
for  the  aristocracy,  and  since  it  was  at  the  same  time 
secret  and  sacred,  the  ordinary  man  was  helpless.  No 
matter  what  conditions  arose,  the  individual  had  to  be 
judged  by  the  old  law. 

When  the  English  wished  permission  to  begin  an  ir- 
rigating system  in  India,  the  improvement  could  not  be 
allowed  by  the  Hindoos  till  some  old  phrase  in  the 
sacred  books  was  twisted  into  an  endorsement  of  irriga- 
tion. Nothing  must  be  done  that  is  not  sanctioned  ex- 
pressly by  the  religious  authorities.  When  any  such  crys- 
tallization of  custom  is  secured,  it  means  the  perpetua- 
tion of  whatever  class  is  in  power.  This  is  but  another 
way  of  saying  that  wherever  the  tribal  conscience  is 
dominant,  aristocracy  will  be  perpetuated.  Ice  will  not 
form  where  water  is  in  rapid  motion,  nor  will  an  aris- 
tocracy gain  much  power  while  social  conditions  are 
mobile.    Any  influence  which  tends  to  fix  social  condi- 


THE  SOCIAL  CONSCIENCE  151 

tions,  changing  them  from  the  fluid  to  crystallized  form, 
furnishes  the  conditions  in  which  aristocracy  flourishes. 
Under  such  a  social  order,  the  individual  had  an  im- 
portance only  when  he  was  fortunte  enough  to  belong 
to  the  aristocracy.  So  long  as  things  could  be  kept  as 
they  were,  the  favored  few  could  keep  their  special 
privileges.  Christianity  came  in  to  teach  that  each  man 
in  himself,  regardless  of  the  class  in  which  he  was  born, 
had  an  infinite  value.  Civilization  since  that  time  may 
be  measured  by  the  degree  in  which  it  has  appreciated 
the  weakest  man.  The  strong  can  always  have  consid- 
eration, and  need  no  safeguard ;  Christianity  has  its  social 
value  in  the  fact  that  it  appreciates  the  weak  things  in  life. 

The  Christian  Ideal. 

The  aim  which  Christianity  set  for  the  social  conscience 
is  the  glory  of  God  and  the  weal  of  man.  Such  an  ideal, 
if  faithfully  followed,  makes  a  social  aristocracy  impos- 
sible. The  ancient  religions  had  fostered  aristocracy, 
since  they  proposed  a  fixed  ideal  —  an  ideal  which  was 
already  realized.  This  made  no  provision  for  future 
development.  Christianity  provides  no  station  where  the 
individual  or  the  society  can  stop,  with  the  certainty 
that  God  has  his  due  of  glory  and  man  his  share  of  weal. 
Unceasingly,  in  the  progressive  State,  does  the  social 
conscience  call  upon  men  to  take  a  higher  conception 
of  what  the  glory  of  God  and  the  welfare  of  men  re- 
quire. It  is  this  which  makes  aristocracy  impossible, 
and  democracy  inevitable  in  the  Christian  order  of  de- 
velopment.    The  Christian  ideal  allows  for  no  pause  in 


i$S  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

the  movement  toward  the  thorough  appreciation  of  "  the 
least  of  these,  my  brethren." 

It  is  sometimes  said  that  the  glory  of  God  is  an  ab- 
straction which  can  not  be  used  to  define  conduct.  Rather 
should  it  be  said  that  it  affords  the  standard  by  which 
to  measure  human  well-being.  Men  are  not  agreed  as 
to  what  constitutes  the  good  of  man.  One  set  of  re- 
formers, the  Socialists,  identifies  social  weal  with  the 
abundance  of  material  goods,  and  insists  on  the  public 
ownership  of  the  means  of  production,  in  order  to  bring 
about  this  economic  change.  Another  school,  which  makes 
wealth  the  end,  contends  that  the  Socialistic  method 
would  mean  the  undoing  of  society.  Others  claim  that 
the  social  weal  does  not  consist  simply  in  an  economic 
surplus,  but  rather  in  a  higher  spiritual  life.  These,  and 
many  others  that  might  be  named,  are  all  aiming  at  the 
social  improvement,  yet  there  is  a  lack  of  agreement 
as  to  what  the  social  welfare  demands. 

It  is  at  this  point  that  the  duty  to  God  defines  our 
duty  to  man.  Would  the  plan  of  the  Socialist,  the  An- 
archist, or  the  Single  Taxer,  give  glory  to  God  when 
carried  to  its  fruition?  If  no  one  of  these  would  gain 
that  end,  then  no  one  of  them  can  be  an  end  toward 
which  men  should  strive.  The  ideal  is  not  simply  eco- 
nomic. The  change  is  not  alone  in  economic  methods, 
but  in  spiritual  life.  It  would  be  possible  to  find  out 
in  the  costly  school  of  experience  the  v/orth  of  any  of 
the  various  panaceas  that  are  offered  for  the  curing  of 
human  ills,  but  the  teachings  of  Jesus  Christ  have  pro- 
vided an  easier  way.    It  is  possible  to  throw  out  all  plans 


THE  SOCIAL  CONSCIENCE  153 

for  social  service  which  do  not,  at  the  same  time,  minister 
to  the  divine.  The  social  ideal  must  be  also  the  divine, 
as  the  social  spirit  is  to  be  at  one  with  God. 

Christianity  and  the  Social  Conscience. 

We  are  accustomed  to  think  of  conscience  as  the  dy- 
namic element  in  life,  as  that  which  makes  us  dissatisfied 
with  what  we  are,  in  comparison  with  what  we  should 
be.  Yet  it  is  worth  keeping  in  mind  that  this  concep- 
tion of  conscience  scarcely  obtains  except  under  the 
teaching  of  Christianity.  One  would  not  easily  prove 
that  conscience  is  a  dynamic  influence  in  India  or  in 
China,  unless  one  would  regard  the  force  of  inertia  as 
dynamic.  The  social  conscience  in  those  countries  puts 
a  ban  on  progress. 

The  citizen  of  ancient  Rome  rose  and  ate,  he  sowed 
and  reaped,  according  to  the  ritual  imposed  on  him  by 
the  gods.  This  ritual  was  his  religion,  and  his  conscience 
demanded  its  strict  observance.  Whenever  a  people  is 
ruled  by  a  religion  of  ritual,  instead  of  principles,  progress 
is  possible  only  at  the  expense  of  religion.  Thus  when 
the  Plebeians  wrested  the  law  from  the  Patricians  at 
Rome,  it  meant  the  decline  of  faith  in  the  Roman  religion. 
Principles  of  a  high  order  such  as  Jesus  taught,  allow 
for  infinite  development;  ritual  fixes  the  society  as  it  is. 

While  the  Plebeian  was  excluded  from  religious  privi- 
leges at  Rome,  he  had  no  ancestors,  because  he  had  no 
ritual  for  their  worship ;  he  could  contract  no  legal  mar- 
riage, because  he  had  no  marriage  rites;  there  was  no 
legal  relation  of  parents  and  children,  since  there  were 


154  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

no  religious  rites  in  the  home.  When  the  Plebeians  went 
out  to  the  Sacred  Mount  to  build  a  city,  they  found  it 
impossible  to  draw  its  boundaries,  or  set  its  walls,  through 
lack  of  gods  to  supervise  the  work.  In  that  day,  when 
the  infidel  was  unknown,  no  one  would  have  thought 
of  founding  a  city  except  according  to  the  ritual  of  the 
gods. 

The  doctrines  of  Mohammed  were  more  flexible  than 
the  Roman  ritual,  so  that  the  prophet  was  able  to  lift 
the  tribes  of  the  desert  and  weld  them  into  a  fighting 
force  for  the  teaching  of  his  creed;  but  the  elasticity 
was  slight,  the  development  small.  Their  heaven  hung 
so  low  that  their  heads  soon  reached  it. 

Buddhism  did  no  better  in  furnishing  a  basis  for  con- 
science. It  thoroughly  depreciated  the  individual,  so  that 
he  considered  his  life  as  of  no  value,  looking  for  the 
Hindoo  heaven  in  the  Nirvana,  where  the  individual 
was  lost  in  the  infinite.  There  is  little  incentive  for  the 
individual  or  the  society  to  strive  after  better  conditions 
when  "  the  best  of  being  is  but  not  to  be." 

So  one  may  run  over  the  list  of  the  religions  of  the 
earth,  and  find  that  in  no  one  except  Christianity  will 
the  conscience  be  trained  to  demand  social  progress.  In 
no  other  does  one  find  such  expression  from  a  devotee 
as  that  of  Paul :  "  Forgetting  the  things  which  are  be- 
hind, and  stretching  forward  to  the  things  which  are 
before,  I  press  on  toward  the  goal."  The  social  conscience 
is  measured  by  the  knowledge  which  the  social  mind  has 
gained  of  Jesus  Christ ;  and  as  the  Spirit  leads  into  "  more 
truth,"  the  former  view  is  dwarfed  by  the  conception  of 


THE  SOCIAL  CONSCIENCE  155 

a  larger  Christ,  which  society  is  impelled  to  realize  in 
its  institutions  and  laws.  The  Christ  is  larger  than  our 
highest  conception  of  Him,  so  that  conscience  in  the 
growing  life  makes  ever  new  demands  of  growth.  The 
individual,  who  must  ever  pioneer  the  way  for  society 
because  he  has  a  clearer  vision  of  the  Christ  than  that 
given  to  the  mass  of  men,  is  under  bonds  to  take  the 
path  which  conscience  chooses,  blazing  the  road  in  which 
coming  generations  will  walk.  Olive  Schreiner  makes 
one  of  her  characters  say :  "  Where  I  lie  down  worn 
out,  other  men  will  stand,  young  and  fresh.  By  the 
steps  that  I  have  cut  they  will  climb;  by  the  stairs  that 
I  have  built,  they  will  mount.  They  will  never  know 
the  name  of  the  man  who  made  them." 

The  Christian  Conscience  is  Democratic. 

In  popular  speech  democracy  means  scarcely  more  than 
universal  manhood  suffrage.  That  is  one  of  the  condi- 
tions of  democracy,  yet  only  one.  Before  the  courts 
and  the  ballot-box  each  counts  for  one,  but  this  equality 
is  but  formal  so  long  as  the  line  is  rigorously  drawn 
in  the  factory  and  the  social  gathering.  The  separation 
is  not  more  distinctly  made  at  the  present  day  between 
employers  and  workmen,  than  it  is  between  different 
classes  of  workmen.  In  our  cities,  and  even  in  our 
villages,  the  dwellers  on  one  street  hesitate  to  elevate  the 
less  fortunate  dwellers  on  some  other  street  to  their 
social  peerage.  We  are  many  degrees  removed  from  the 
extreme  separations  into  classes  which  deform  the  social 
life  of  India,  doubtless  farther  removed  from  that  democ- 


156  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

racy  which  distinguishes  the  Kingdom  of  God.  Jesus 
defined  the  democracy  which  He  came  to  earth  to  mani- 
fest by  word  and  act  when  He  said :  "  Whosoever  will 
be  chief  among  you,  let  him  be  your  servant."  In  such 
a  society  the  Plebeian  and  the  Patrician,  the  slave  and 
the  Emperor,  stand  on  a  common  footing.  Paul  had 
in  his  company  philosophers  from  the  schools,  and  the 
slave  with  the  iron  ring,  which  marked  his  station,  about 
his  neck,  for  the  conscience  trained  in  that  discipline 
knew  neither  class  nor  caste. 

Whether  the  ancient  religions  of  Rome  and  India  had 
forged  the  fetters  of  caste  or  not,  it  was  certain  that  they 
lent  their  aid  in  keeping  the  shackles  on.  Once  let  the 
social  conscience  rest  satisfied  with  things  as  they  are, 
and  no  matter  what  stage  of  advancement  has  been 
reached,  an  aristocracy  will  be  formed.  The  social  con- 
science must  be  kept  active  if  society  is  to  remain  in  a 
plastic  condition.  Once  let  men  feel  that  they  are  about 
as  good  as  they  need  to  be,  and  the  wrongs  of  the  op- 
pressed appeal  to  them  in  vain.  That  is  one  reason  why 
the  periods  of  material  prosperity  are  apt  to  be  marked 
by  social  indifference  to  individual  wrongs. 

No  State  has  yet  appreciated  the  individual  at  the 
value  which  Jesus  set  upon  him,  though  the  intervening 
nineteen  centuries  have  not  left  the  individual  as  they 
found  him.  Suicide  is  no  longer  approved  as  honorable. 
It  is  related  that  when  the  philosopher  Seneca  learned 
that  he  had  lost  the  favor  of  the  Emperor,  Nero,  he 
invited  his  friends  to  a  banquet  and  at  its  close  calmly 
opened  his  veins  as  if  life  were  of  no  account.    When 


THE  SOCIAL  CONSCIENCE  157 

men  held  their  own  lives  so  cheaply,  it  need  cause  no 
surprise  that  the  thousands  were  slaughtered  in  the  arena 
for  the  pleasure  of  the  crowd ;  nor  is  it  strange  that  the 
populace  should  hiss  the  vanquished  gladiator  who  pre- 
sumed to  beg  for  life,  instead  of  quietly  receiving  the 
death-thrust.  The  malformed  infant,  once  thought  to 
be  a  social  burden,  is  not  now  cast  out  to  die,  nor  are 
the  prisons  of  England  such  "  vile  dens  "  as  when  Bun- 
yan  saw  them  two  hundred  years  ago.  The  individual 
seems  to  be  coming  into  his  own  as  Christianity  works 
upon  the  social  conscience  to  clear  the  way,  yet  one  may 
read  in  the  records  of  daily  events  the  facts  which  in- 
dicate that  Christianity  is  often  but  a  veneer  over  the 
unregenerate  savage  of  the  former  days. 
The  Separation  of  the  Church  from  the  Government. 

This  event  was  one  of  the  ways  in  which  Democracy 
was  made  possible.  It  has  been  already  stated  that  in 
the  ancient  society,  no  line  was  drawn  between  the  po- 
litical and  ecclesiastical  institutions;  they  had  the  same 
official  head,  since  the  king  was  also  a  priest;  they  had 
the  same  sanctuary,  the  civitas 

No  clearly  marked  distinction  was  then  drawn  between 
the  ecclesiastical  and  the  political,  with  the  possible  ex- 
ception of  the  Hebrew  Commonwealth,  until  Jesus  or- 
ganized his  new  society. 

Previous  to  this  time  the  local  religion  had  been  used 
to  sanction  the  existing  political  order;  but  the  com- 
munity of  persons  which  Jesus  formed  about  Himself  was 
in  direct  antagonism  to  the  political  methods  of  the  time. 
It  is  quite  true  that  He  refused  to  be  a  party  to  any 


158  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

insurrection  against  Rome,  teaching  the  duty  of  sub- 
mission even  to  injustice.  Yet  it  would  not  be  questioned 
that  the  realization  of  the  principles  which  He  laid  down 
would  have  revolutionized  any  Government  existing  at, 
or  since,  that  time.  The  organization  which  Jesus  ef- 
fected, with  the  twelve  Apostles  as  a  nucleus,  and  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount  as  a  constitution,  differed  in  its 
laws,  in  its  ideals,  and  in  its  spirit,  from  the  existing  civil 
powers.  Therefore  it  is  clear  that  between  this  body, 
which  was  the  germ  of  the  Kingdom  and  the  Church, 
and  the  Roman  administration  there  could  be  no  basis 
of  agreement  which  would  not  have  resulted  in  a  funda- 
mental change  in  one  or  other  party.  The  sentence  of 
death  which  Rome  passed  upon  Jesus  was  the  only  log- 
ical conclusion  from  the  premises.  Pilate's  bad  record, 
which  he  feared  to  meet  at  Rome,  his  moral  weakness 
in  the  face  of  the  mob,  were  the  immediate  causes;  yet 
back  of  these  was  the  fact  of  an  irrepressible  conflict  be- 
tween the  principles  of  force  and  love.  The  death  of 
Jesus  came  in  the  logic  of  events.  To  the  time  it  was 
the  triumph  of  force;  to  the  future  the  triumph  of  love. 

Judaism  and  the  Empire  Were  Aristocratic, 

Jesus  in  His  teaching  had  asked  that  a  new  valuation 
should  be  placed  upon  the  individual,  and  to  have  granted 
it  would  have  bankrupted  both  the  Roman  and  the  Jewish 
institutions  of  the  day.  There  had  been  a  time  both  in 
Rome  and  in  Palestine  when  the  common  man  had  some 
consideration,  but  it  had  passed.  The  lust  for  power 
and  gold  at  Rome  had  banished  the  old  equality  which 


THE  SOCIAL  CONSCIENCE  159 

existed  among  the  simple  peasantry  which  produced  a 
Cincinnatus,  to  replace  it  by  the  rule  of  the  men  who 
had  been  enriched  by  the  plunder  of  the  provinces.  Nor 
was  the  case  otherwise  in  Judea,  where  it  was  thought 
that  Jesus  had  forfeited  his  claim  to  respect  by  eating 
with  "  sinners."  To  accept  the  teaching  of  Jesus  would 
require  that  the  haughty  Pharisee  should  be  a  friend 
to  men  regardless  of  their  station,  and  that  the  Roman, 
who  flung  his  slaves  to  the  fishes  on  the  slightest  pro- 
vocation, should  become  a  minister  to  the  lowly.  For 
either  Jew  or  Roman  to  have  acted  on  this  proposal 
would  have  overturned  the  existing  social  systems. 

The  new  religion  could  not  live  at  peace  with  existing 
conditions,  so  that  instead  of  acting  as  a  prop  to  the 
temporal  order  as  heathenism  had  done,  it  undermined 
it.  Both  the  Jewish  and  the  Romans  faiths  had  been 
understood  to  teach  that  righteousness  consisted  in  re- 
peating the  past,  by  walking  in  the  footsteps  of  their 
ancestors.  Jesus  taught  through  the  medium  of  Paul, 
"old  things  are  passed  away;  behold,  all  things  are 
become  new."  It  was  this  condemnation,  passed  by 
Jesus  and  his  followers  on  past  and  present  observance 
that  brought  about  the  new  conditions.  The  old  order 
could  be  maintained  so  long  as  it  had  the  support  of 
religion ;  but  when  that  stay  was  removed,  the  individual 
freed  himself  from  the  old  restrictions,  "  which  neither 
they  nor  their  fathers  were  able  to  bear." 

Thus  the  Jewish  and  Roman  institutions  lost  their 
sanctity  in  the  eyes  of  the  common  people  and  were 
brought  to  the  test  of  their  fitness  to  benefit  men.    It  was 


160  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

less  now  what  was  old  than  what  was  right,  two  ideas 
which  had  not  been  distinguished  under  heathenism. 
Thus  when  Christianity  shifted  the  ideal  of  the  Gentile 
converts  from  the  past  to  the  future,  it  broke  the  yoke 
of  old  customs,  giving  an  affirmative  impulse  to  the 
democratic  idea  which  rated  each  man  at  an  eternal 
value.  The  parable  of  the  lost  sheep  was  strange  doc- 
trine to  the  ancient  world. 

It  was  for  these  reasons  that  the  growing  antagonism 
between  the  Church  and  the  Empire  came  to  discredit 
the  aristocratic  order.  By  the  customs  of  the  time, 
men  were  rated  according  to  the  social  class  to  which 
they  belonged;  Christianity  insisted  that  each  individual 
be  valued  as  a  man.  It  had  been  the  former  teaching 
that  individuals  existed  for  the  sake  of  institutions,  the 
individual  for  the  State;  Jesus  taught  in  regard  to  the 
holiest  of  institutions  that  "  the  Sabbath  was  made  for 
man,  and  not  man  for  the  Sabbath."  To  such  an  extreme 
was  the  dislike  of  existing  institutions  carried  that  the 
belief  was  prevalent  in  the  Church  of  the  early  centuries 
that  the  social  order  was  hopelessly  bad  and  that  the  only 
safety  for  the  individual  was  to  isolate  himself  in  the 
desert  or  a  monastery. 

Monasteries  and  the  Social  Conscience. 

It  is  doubtful  whether  Protestants  have  sufficiently 
appreciated  the  work  of  the  monastery  in  the  medieval 
society.  To  the  modern  aggressive  Christian,  who  be- 
lieves that  the  one  who  follows  Christ  must  lose  his  life 
in  the  world  contest  in  order  to  find  it,  the  act  of  the 


THE  SOCIAL  CONSCIENCE  161 

monk  who  secludes  himself  in  the  monastery  from  the 
social  conflict  appears  that  of  a  craven.  Unquestionably 
there  is  truth  in  that  charge  against  the  monk  of  our 
own  time,  doubtless  there  was  truth  in  it  even  for  the 
time  when  the  monasteries  overlooked  most  of  the  val- 
leys of  Italy,  and  the  deserts  of  Thebaid  could  number 
their  hermit  cells  by  the  thousand.  Yet  it  is  easy  to 
overlook  the  fact  that  the  monastery  played  a  part  of 
some  importance  in  the  development  of  the  social  con^ 
science. 

The  community  within  the  monastery  walls  was  pledged 
to  democracy.  Whether  the  candidate  wore  the  purple, 
or  had  the  iron  ring  about  his  neck,  all  distinctions  fell 
away  as  he  passed  within  the  walls.  Each  gave  up 
the  name  by  which  he  had  been  known,  lest  it  recall  the 
social  distinctions  of  their  former  lives.  While  the 
noble  may  have  had  his  servants  at  his  call,  within  the 
monastery  he  must  scrub  or  dig  as  his  lowest  menial 
had  done.  While  this  community  was  only  a  little  section 
of  the  world  at  large,  it  had  no  slight  significance  that 
even  here  there  was  no  outward  mark  to  distinguish 
rank. 

The  vow  of  the  monk  pledged  him  to  poverty,  chastity, 
and  obedience.  The  monk  may  not  have  regarded  these 
vows  as  good  for  all  men,  he  did  not  dream  that  he 
might  win  the  world  to  their  acceptance;  his  was  the 
acute  conscience  which  must  at  least  realize  these  things 
for  itself.  So  far  it  was  only  the  development  of 
the  conscience  of  the  select  few,  yet  such  leaven  does 
not  lie  passive   in  the  lump.     For  the  time,  the  idea 


162  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

of  the  equality  of  all  men  before  God  might  be  limited 
to  the  monastery  walls,  there  alone  might  the  idea  be 
realized  in  conduct;  but  the  time  must  come  when  the 
idea  thus  nursed  into  vigorous  life  would  go  out  to  the 
conquest  of  the  world. 

On  first  sight,  the  vows  of  the  monastery  do  not 
appear  democratic.  The  obligation  to  obedience,  which 
was  rigorously  enforced,  seems  like  a  subordination  of 
the  individual  to  a  superior;  but  it  was  obedience  to 
a  superior  whom  the  monks  themselves  had  chosen.  He 
was  not  imposed  on  them  by  some  outside  authority 
over  which  they  had  no  control.  The  superior  was  one 
of  their  own  number,  who  was  allowed  to  exercise  a 
discipline  that  was  scarcely  less  than  military  in  its 
character.  To  this  position  of  superior  any  one  might 
aspire,  regardless  of  previous  birth  or  wealth,  since 
these  worldly  distinctions  had  no  meaning  under  the 
monastic  regime.  It  was  quite  possible  that  the  former 
servant  might  be  placed  in  authority  over  his  master, 
the  subject  over  the  king  who  had  taken  the  monastic 
vow. 

The  vow  of  chastity,  from  which  certain  disastrous 
results  followed,  had  this  democratic  tendency  in  that  it 
prevented  a  hereditary  priesthood.  Had  it  been  possible 
for  the  abbot  to  have  handed  down  his  office  to  his  son, 
as  was  the  case  in  political  affairs,  it  might  have  resulted 
in  the  formation  of  a  priestly  aristocracy.  This  was 
what  had  come  about  in  the  heathen  religions,  and  would 
have  likewise  in  the  Papal  Church.  But  the  office  was 
recruited  from  the  lower  ranks  of  society. 


THE  SOCIAL  CONSCIENCE  163 

When  the  enthusiastic  followers  of  St.  Simon  a  cen- 
tury ago  adopted  the  monastic  life,  they  reproduced  many 
of  the  characteristics  noted  here.  Under  the  impulse  of 
the  democratic  idea,  the  greatest  scientists  of  France, 
her  authors  and  her  artists,  might  have  been  found  at 
Menilmontant  doing  the  work  of  servants;  men  such 
as  David,  the  composer  of  operas,  and  DeLesseps,  the 
famous  civil  engineer.  It  was  of  account  that  rank  and 
honor  should  not  make  one  look  down  upon  his  fellows, 
even  though  this  idea  should  be  realized  only  in  a  limited 
area. 

Now  it  is  pertinent  to  ask  if  it  had  not  been  better 
to  act  this  equality  in  the  world,  rather  than  within 
four  walls  I  Why  should  they  limit  their  brotherhood 
to  the  few  individuals  who  took  the  vows,  to  the  exclu- 
sion of  the  great  mass  of  men?  Doubtless  many  of  the 
evil  consequences  of  the  monastery  had  been  avoided 
if  such  a  course  had  been  taken;  doubtless  if  the  mon- 
astery had  not  been  built  up  at  that  time  when  it  fur- 
nished an  outlet  for  a  social  impulse,  an  enthusiasm  for 
humanity,  the  monastic  foundation  would  not  have  been 
With  us  as  an  anomaly  in  the  social  life.  But  each  age 
has  its  limitations  and  it  seems  better  that  the  democratic 
idea  should  be  fostered  among  the  few,  than  to  have 
no  place  at  all. 

Every  idea  has  had  its  period  of  infancy  when  it  must 
develop  in  seclusion  in  the  possession  of  the  few.  Not 
at  once  does  it  leap  out  armed  for  world  conquest.  The 
Mosaic  legislation  was  intended  to  keep  the  Jews  a 
separate  people  until  the  new  conception  of  God  and 


164  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

human  brotherhood  should  permeate  the  social  life. 
When  this  had  been  accomplished,  when  the  Jewish  peo- 
ple had  been  bound  together  in  a  common  purpose,  the 
wall  of  partition  between  them  and  the  Gentiles  was 
to  be  taken  away  in  the  death  of  Jesus  Christ  and  the 
Jews  were  to  undertake  their  universal  mission  of  mould- 
ing the  world  after  the  model  which  they  had  been 
taught.  In  some  slight  degree  the  monastery  had  the 
work  of  training  up  the  idea  of  equality  and  brotherhood. 
The  early  Church  had  had  this  idea  finely  realized  in 
the  community  of  goods  and  interests,  but  the  popular- 
izing of  the  Church  increased  her  numbers  at  the  expense 
of  her  character.  The  monastery  came  in  as  a  crude 
attempt  to  preserve  the  idea  of  equality  which  was  in 
danger  of  extinction. 

It  is  the  great  sad  fact  in  the  Hebrew  history  that 
when  the  Christ  came,  the  one  whom  they  had  been 
in  training  for  fifteen  centuries  to  herald,  they  did  not 
know  him,  and  the  Hebrews  put  the  Hebrew  ideal  on 
the  cross.  So  when  it  had  done  all  that  it  could  do  in 
promoting  the  democratic  idea  among  the  chosen  few, 
and  the  time  came,  as  it  had  come  to  the  Hebrews,  of 
heralding  the  idea  of  equality  for  which  it  stood  to 
the  world,  the  monastery  insisted  on  keeping  the  idea 
in  the  napkin  of  the  cloister  walls.  Such  opportunities 
come  but  once. 

Both  the  Hebrew  and  the  monk  mistook  the  means 
for  the  end.  The  Hebrew  insisted  on  holding  by  the 
legal  ritual,  instead  of  its  unfolding  in  the  gospel;  the 
monk  would  still  remain  a  hermit  when  he  should  have 


THE  SOCIAL  CONSCIENCE  165 

become  a  missionary  for  the  modicum  of  truth  which 
he  preserved.  With  the  awakening-  of  the  Renaissance, 
the  time  came  to  abolish  the  dualism  between  the  monas- 
tery and  the  world,  yet  the  monk  refused  the  work  for 
which  he  had  been  trained.  Had  he  thrown  away  his 
monkish  garb  and  ritual,  and  come  out  to  proclaim  to 
the  world  that  there  was  a  common  standard  for  all  men ; 
had  he  taught  the  common  equality  of  men  under  God, 
or  under  men  of  their  own  choice,  the  history  of  the 
Reformation  might  not  have  been  written  in  its  present 
form.  History  is  full  of  the  records  of  nations,  and 
institutions,  and  individuals,  that  have  failed  to  fulfill 
the  mission  for  which  they  had  been  called,  that  even 
sought  to  bar  the  way  of  its  fulfillment. 

The  Individual  and  the  Social  Conscience. 

It  is  through  the  intense  convictions  of  the  conscience 
of  individuals  that  the  social  conscience  is  instructed 
and  aroused.  Spontaneous  generation  is  no  more  true 
in  psychical  than  in  physical  life.  When  individuals 
come  to  have  settled  convictions  on  social  questions, 
the  issue  will  be  forced  home  on  others.  Florence 
Nightingale  had  a  conviction  that  the  British  soldier 
deserved  a  treatment  which  he  had  not  received,  and  her 
devotion  to  that  idea  brought  about  a  social  conviction 
that  ameliorated  the  condition  of  the  camps.  Charles 
Dickens  believed  that  the  Chancery  Courts  caused  many 
arrests  of  justice,  and  the  force  with  which  he  presented 
his  conviction,  roused  the  social  conscience  through  his 
influence  over  the  conscience  of  individuals.    The  social 


166  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

conscience  must  be  reached  through  the  individual  con- 
science. This,  however,  should  not  be  made  an  excuse 
for  the  failure  to  instruct  men  on  social  questions. 
Through  the  enlightenment  of  the  individual  mind  on 
social  affairs  is  the  social  mind  enlightened  and  the  social 
conscience  aroused. 

The  Reformation  and  the  Social  Conscience, 

The  Reformation  came  because  the  existing  institu- 
tions, political  and  ecclesiastical,  had  caused  an  arrest 
of  democracy,  so  that  only  a  revolution  could  free  the 
individual  from  his  limitations.  On  one  side  the  feudal 
lords  had  bound  the  individual  by  rules  and  ground 
him  with  taxes  till  his  living  was  precarious;  the  kings 
simply  voiced  the  order  of  these  feudal  barons;  the 
Church  had  denied  to  the  individual  the  right  of  private 
judgment.  The  Procrustean  bed  of  institutions  had  be- 
come too  short  for  a  man  to  stretch  himself  in  it  and 
must  be  changed  to  save  the  man. 

The  monastery  had  stood  for  a  moral  dualism,  since 
it  did  not  insist  that  the  man  outside  was  bound  by 
the  same  law  as  the  man  inside.  It  taught  a  dual  code 
of  conduct.  The  Puritans  of  the  Reformation  insisted 
that  this  dualism  should  cease  and  that  the  democracy 
of  the  cell  become  the  democracy  of  the  whole  social 
life.  The  individual,  it  was  held,  did  not  live  the  good 
life,  who  made  himself  an  abstraction  from  the  world 
conflict.  This  means  that  the  individual  conscience 
trained  in  the  monastery  must  now  be  socialized  and  put 
to  work.     It  denied  any  geographical  morality. 


THE  SOCIAL  CONSCIENCE  167 

The  monk  had  taught  the  vanity  of  earthly  things 
and  the  supreme  importance  of  the  spiritual,  and  would 
deal  only  with  eternal  coin;  the  Reformation  conscience 
held  that  all  individuals  and  all  the  affairs  of  life  were 
of  importance  to  the  man.  Before  this  new  social  con- 
science the  Pope  was  called  to  account,  and  it  followed 
as  a  necessary  corollary,  though  Luther  did  not  recognize 
it,  that  both  the  king  and  the  feudal  lord  must  render 
an  account  of  their  stewardship  before  the  same  court. 
It  is  the  usual  misfortune  of  the  exponents  of  a  new 
social  order  that  they  fail  to  see  the  complete  application 
of  the  truth  which  they  proclaim.  Luther  demanded 
liberty  of  judgment;  at  the  same  time  he  justified  slavery. 
He  insisted  upon  freedom  from  papal  exactions;  he 
severely  condemned  the  Peasants'  revolt.  To  the  one 
who  looks  upon  these  events  from  the  vantage  which 
years  furnish,  it  is  clear  that  these  movements  are  not 
antagonistic,  but  only  different  spheres  in  which  the 
impulse  toward  freedom  for  the  individual  manifested 
itself.  The  contest  for  the  appreciation  of  the  individual 
in  the  Church  was  logically  followed  by  the  struggle  for 
political  and  economic  emancipation.  If  the  downmost 
man  is  to  have  his  true  value  allowed  in  the  Church, 
it  could  be  only  a  question  of  time  when  he  would 
stand  before  kings  and  barons,  no  longer  with  a  petition, 
but  a  demand. 

The  Reformation  is  the  demand  of  the  social  con- 
science that  the  individual  should  have  room  to  grow. 
Previous  to  this  time  the  energies  of  Europe  had  gone 
into  the  Crusades  for  the  rescue  of  an  empty  tomb; 


168  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

now  Europe  turned  to  face  the  West  and  the  future, 
sent  Columbus  to  find  a  new  world  where  freedom 
might  take  root,  invented  the  movable  types  for  the  free- 
ing of  thought.  The  individual  had  broken  his  shell  of 
old  tradition.  The  Eighty  Years  War  between  Spain 
and  Holland  was  the  attempt  of  the  former,  representing 
a  traditional  past,  to  fetter,  with  the  inquisition,  the 
growing  independence  of  the  latter;  after  Spain  had 
spent  her  sons  and  her  treasures  in  a  futile  attempt  to 
restore  old  conditions,  she  was  obliged  to  give  the  Dutch 
their  freedom  to  think.  The  social  conscience  condemned 
the  Spanish  methods  and  all  the  treasures  of  the  Indies 
were  poured  out  in  the  hopeless  attempt  to  reverse  this 
judgment.    Armies  can  not  conquer  conscience. 

Religion  was  the  chief  factor  in  the  Reformation  con- 
science; so  it  is  ever.  It  was  Christianity  that  placed 
the  true  value  upon  the  individual  and  has  compelled 
society,  in  some  measure,  to  accept  the  estimate  which 
Jesus  put  on  him.  At  any  period  in  history  when  religion 
has  lost  its  influence,  the  individual  has  lost  his  rights. 
The  social  conscience  can  bring  about  the  realization  of 
the  ideal  of  the  free  citizen  in  a  developed  democracy, 
only  when  Christianity  permeates  the  social  life.  Stifle 
religion  and  an  aristocracy  results.  It  may  be  of  soldiers, 
as  in  the  past;  it  may  be  of  traders,  as  in  the  present; 
but  in  one  way  or  another  it  will  come.  The  great 
aggregation  of  capital  and  combination  of  capitalists 
known  as  the  liquor  power,  regards  the  downmost  man 
as  its  lawful  prey,  is  careless  of  individual  welfare.  For 
the  sake  of  the  dimes  that  may  bs  added  to  its  mighty 


THE  SOCIAL  CONSCIENCE  169 

revenue,  it  crushes  the  poor  in  his  poverty  and  disin- 
herits the  man  of  his  manhood.  In  other  lines  of  cor- 
porate control,  for  social  control  is  largely  in  the  hands 
of  the  trading  corporations,  there  is  like,  if  not  equal, 
disregard  of  the  "mudsill."  Only  a  Renaissance  of 
Christianity  can  arouse  the  social  conscience  to  assume 
its  rightful  place  as  the  dominant  psychic  factor  in  social 
affairs. 

What  is  essential  in  our  own  times  for  the  development 
of  the  social  conscience,  with  its  consequent  guardianship 
of  the  individual,  is  the  enlightenment  of  the  social  mind. 
Not  in  modern  times  has  the  military  censorship,  insti- 
tuted rigorously  that  the  home  people  might  not  be 
informed  of  the  methods  used  abroad,  and  the  industrial 
censorship  which  has  been  enforced  against  press,  pulpit 
and  platform,  been  more  in  evidence  than  in  the  recent 
months.  The  need  of  the  social  conscience  is  complete 
publicity  of  social  events. 

Nor  is  publicity  sufficient  of  itself.  History  proves 
that  the  logic  of  circumstances  is  required  to  give  the 
logic  of  argument  a  value  in  the  social  mind.  The 
victim  of  Claverhouse  made  no  mistake  when  he  said  to 
that  brutal  inquisitor,  "You  will  make  more  Whigs  in 
one  day  than  all  the  hill  preachers  of  Scotland  together." 
"The  blood  of  the  martyrs  has  been  the  seed  of  the 
Church,"  because  it  has  been  a  louder  call  to  conscience 
than  the  preacher's  word.  The  men  who  looked  upon 
the  sacrifice  by  fire  of  Patrick  Hamilton  saw  a  new 
meaning  in  the  truth  for  which  he  died. 

In  the  time  of  the  anti-slavery  struggle,  pulpit,  plat- 


17©  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

form,  and  press,  preached  the  doctrine  of  human  free- 
dom, appealing  to  the  social  intelligence.  For  a  genera- 
tion the  teaching  was  continued  until  it  seemed  to  many 
that  the  work  of  education  had  been  completed.  But 
such  was  not  the  case.  The  truth  had  been  told,  but  it 
had  not  won  social  appreciation.  Something  was  needed 
to  make  men  see  the  truth  in  all  its  relations,  and  thus 
feel  an  interest  in  it.  Voice  and  type  had  done  their 
part,  and  could  do  no  more,  when  the  appeal  was  made 
to  the  arbitrament  of  war  at  Fort  Sumter.  Nor  even 
yet  was  the  lesson  learned,  for  the  men  who  marched 
southward  from  farm  and  factory  did  not  go  to  free  the 
slave,  but  to  save  the  Union.  God  in  His  providence 
led  the  Federal  forces  to  defeat  in  Virginia,  until  the 
tide  of  invasion  turned  and  Lee  came  into  Maryland, 
threatening  both  Washington  and  Philadelphia.  Then, 
and  not  till  then,  did  the  social  mind  understand  the  sin- 
fulness of  human  slavery  and  justify  President  Lincoln 
in  the  emancipation  of  a  race.  Nothing  short  of  the 
agony  of  war  could  bring  the  country  to  an  understand- 
ing of  the  situation.  The  thought  must,  in  some  way, 
be  made  of  such  importance  that  men  will  feel  and  will. 

The  social  mind  seems  to  be  going  through  the  same 
process  on  the  question  of  the  saloon.  The  social  damage 
inflicted  by  the  saloon  and  its  adjuncts  has  been  so  fully 
and  so  frequently  set  forth  that  there  seems  little  need 
for  further  witness. 

It  seems  probable  that,  as  in  the  case  of  slavery,  the 
lesson  will  have  to  be  interpreted  by  the  force  of  events. 
A  half-century  ago  it  was  necessary  that  the  State  should 


THE  SOCIAL  CONSCIENCE  171 

appreciate  the  infinite  value  of  the  individual  even  though 
he  wore  a  black  skin;  it  is  necessary  now  to  realize  that 
not  all  the  revenues  of  the  saloon  can  weigh  against  a 
single  life  which  the  liquor  traffic  destroys.  The  social 
intelligence  must  be  so  developed  that  it  will  rate  the 
man  at  the  valuation  which  Jesus  placed  upon  him. 
A  century  ago  the  call  was  issued  in  Europe  and 
America  to  safeguard  the  individual:  but  it  was  issued 
in  the  name  of  infidelity.  Today  when  our  great  political 
parties  have  agreed  to  withdraw  privileges  which  the 
negro  has  legally  enjoyed  for  a  generation,  when  Eng- 
land is  legislating  toward  the  forcing  of  the  Government 
religion  on  the  pupils  in  the  schools,  when  subject  peo- 
ples are  held  for  commercial  exploitation,  there  is  need 
to  issue  again  the  call  to  safeguard  individual  freedom 
in  the  name  of  a  social  conscience  enlightened  by  the 
teachings  of  Jesus. 


Nash,  The  Genesis  of  the  Social  Conscience;  Dewey,  The 
Study  of  Ethics;  Dewey,  Outlines  of  Ethics;  Mackenzie,  Manual 
of  Ethics;  Addams,  Phi\anthrot>v  and  Social  Progress;  De- 
Coulanges,  The  Ancient  City. 


SOCIAL  FORCES 

Mr.  Lewes,  who  accepted  the  authority  of  history, 
though  denying  that  of  revelation,  once  said  to  Mr.  John 
Stuart  Mill  that  it  must  be  admitted  that  certain  influ- 
ences for  freedom  which  had  not  been  known  before, 
came  into  the  world  about  the  time  when  Christ  was 
on  the  earth.  It  was  not,  however,  the  initiation  of  the 
struggle  for  freedom,  for  that  had  been  going  on  through 
the  past ;  it  was  the  time  when  a  new  impulse  was  given 
to  the  factors  which  make  for  the  realization  of  human 
freedom. 

It  was  to  the  disciples  who  felt  within  them  the  stir- 
ring of  a  new  life  that  Jesus  said :  "  The  Kingdom  of 
God  is  within  you."  Henceforth  it  was  to  be  an  unrest- 
ing contest  between  the  individual  and  social  forces'  pf 
indifrerentism  and  retrogression  on  one  hand  and  the 
progressive  Kingdom  of  God  on  the  other.  The  Kingdom 
of  God  aimed  at  nothing  less  than  universal  empire 
in  the  hearts  of  men;  it  brooked  no  rival,  would  make 
no  terms.  At  first  the  inspiration  of  a  few  individuals, 
it  so  transformed  these  men  that  they  infected  those 
whom  they  touched.  "  It  is  like  leaven  which  a  woman 
took  and  hid  in  the  meal,"  since  each  changed  life  became 
a  constructive  influence  in  the  lives  of  other  men. 
The  Kingdom  Against  the  World. 

The  kosmos,  or  the  world,  is  Paul's  designation  of  the 

172 


SOCIAL  FORCES  173 

life  which  is  not  transformed  by  the  spirit  of  God.  Paul 
contended  with  this  world  in  the  lives  of  other  men;  he 
contended  with  it  in  his  own.  The  world  was  the  dom- 
inant influence  in  the  lives  of  the  men  to  whom  he 
preached  in  the  capitals  of  the  Mediterranean  neighbor- 
hood ;  it  was  still  an  influence  in  the  lives  of  the  Chris- 
tians whom  Paul  calls  his  "  little  children."  Now  the 
Kingdom  was  to  come  into  the  individual  and  the  social 
life  as  a  new  principle,  to  contest  for  domination  with 
the  world  which  was  in  possession. 

Between  these  two  psychic  forces  in  the  social  life, 
there  could  be  no  truce,  or  compromise ;  either  the  world, 
or  the  Kingdom,  must  gain  control. 

Mr.  Herbert  Stead  has  defined  the  Kingdom  as  "  the 
fellowship  of  souls  Divine  and  human,  of  which  the  law 
and  the  life  are  love,  wherein  the  Fatherhood  of  God 
and  the  Brotherhood  of  Man,  as  both  are  embodied  in 
Jesus  the  Christ,  are  recognized  and  realized."  This 
comprehensive  definition  sets  before  us  one  of  the  psychic 
forces  in  the  social  life,  of  which  Jesus  Christ  is  the 
inspiration.  It  comes  into  the  life  and  takes  such  com- 
plete possession  that  Paul  could  assert :  "  It  is  no  longer 
I  that  live,  but  Christ  liveth  in  me."  Yet  the  world 
still  remained  as  a  factor,  even  with  the  Apostle  to  the 
Gentiles.  The  kosmos,  as  it  is  treated  by  the  apostles, 
does  not  refer  to  a  place,  but  to  a  principle  of  life.  This 
kosmos  rules  in  the  individual  and  the  social  spirit,  until 
the  Kingdom  enters  and  wins  the  contest  for  the  suprem- 
acy of  the  life.  Conversion  of  the  life,  individual  or 
social,  relegates  the  kosmos  to  a  subordinate  position. 


174  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

Paul's  Statement  of  the  Case, 

In  the  letter  to  the  Romans,  7th  chapter,  Paul  gives 
his  experience  of  the  struggle  between  the  Kingdom 
and  the  world  for  the  control  of  his  life.  He  laments 
that  "  the  good  I  would  I  do  not ;  but  the  evil  which  I 
would  not,  that  I  do."  So  far  as  Paul  was  concerned, 
the  Kingdom  was  in  control;  he  willed  the  good  thing, 
yet  the  world  had  such  hold  that  it  could  vitiate  the 
act.  Paul  does  not  claim  that  he  is  not  free  to  choose; 
the  lack  comes  in  the  performance.  "  For,"  he  says,  "  I 
see  a  different  law  in  my  members,  warring  against  the 
law  of  my  mind."  The  kosmos  had  so  permeated  his 
life,  that  it  could  not  be  entirely  expelled,  even  though 
it  could  be  kept  under.  In  this  struggle  of  an  acute  con- 
science we  have  the  psychological  factors  which  work 
for  and  against  righteousness.  Paul  is  not  leading  a 
dual  life;  he  is  describing  the  conflict  which  goes  on 
within  the  individual  life.  The  individual  is  the  battle 
field  as  well  as  the  contending  forces.  One  or  other  of 
these  forces  is  always  dominant  and  that  one  is  decisive 
of  the  character  of  the  life.  Not  that  either  becomes 
so  completely  dominant  as  to  be  uninfluenced  by  the 
other.  It  is  doubtful  if  any  man  ever  becomes  so  bad 
as  to  have  no  good  impulses,  or  so  good  as  to  be  entirely 
free  from  the  evil  principle  of  the  "  world."  There  is 
always  some  opposition,  however  slight,  whether  there 
is  moral  development  or  declension. 

What  Paul  so  vividly  experienced  and  described  in 
his  own  life,  finds  its  counterpart  in  the  social  life.  There 
also  the  world  is  dominant ;  there  too  the  Kingdom  enters 


SOCIAL  FORCES  175 

the  field  and  struggles  for  the  mastery.  Since  the  world 
has  control  in  the  major  number  of  individual  lives,  it 
has  control  in  the  social  life,  yet  is  this  mastery  not  so 
complete  as  to  entirely  eliminate  the  psychic  principle 
of  the  Kingdom.  Paul  brings  out  the  fact  that  the 
evil  principle  was  able  to  leave  its  taint  on  every  act. 
The  disease  which  shows  in  the  hand,  indicates  the 
impurity  of  the  life  current  in  all  parts  of  the  body;  so 
does  sin  prevent  the  act  from  satisfying  all  the  demands 
of  the  situation.  While  society  today  is  not  Christian 
as  Jesus  Christ  defines  Christianity,  yet  it  is  not  what  it 
would  be  if  the  Kingdom  .were  eliminated  as  a  social 
force. 

For  the  purpose  of  our  study  of  society,  both  the 
Kingdom  and  the  world  are  present,  active  factors.  Each 
is  trying  to  monopolize  the  field  and  make  society  entirely 
in  its  own  pattern.  Each  of  them  expresses  the  belief 
of  certain  classes  in  society  and  they  are  arrayed  against 
each  other  on  every  great  social  question.  It  is  impos- 
sible to  identify  these  psychic  forces  with  particular 
institutions.  The  Church  has  for  its  work  the  bringing 
in  of  the  Kingdom,  but  it  is  possible  to  find  some  outside 
the  Church  that  are  as  closely  identified  with  the  social 
force  that  makes  for  righteousness  as  some  that  are 
within.  The  line  between  the  opposing  social  factors  can 
be  drawn  with  greater  accuracy  by  principles,  than  by 
institutions.  The  principle  of  action  in  the  Kingdom 
is  love;  the  principle  of  the  opposition  could  scarcely 
be  better  defined  than  by  the  word  force. 

According  to  one  or  other  of  these  principles,  each 


176  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

individual  must  line  up  his  action ;  not  that  either  prin- 
ciple will  cover  each  particular  thing  that  he  may  do, 
but  that  one  principle  will  have  the  dominant  place. 
He  adopts  one  or  other  as  his  ethical  standard.  Between 
the  dominions  of  these  principles  there  is  no  neutral 
ground ;  for  as  Jesus  stated  the  case,  "  He  that  is  not  for 
us  is  against  us." 

In  any  movement,  psychical  or  physical,  the  inert 
element  must  be  reckoned  with;  so  in  the  social  move- 
ment it  has  its  influence.  If  society  is  moving  toward 
a  higher  moral  level,  the  force  of  inertia,  of  that  whole 
class  of  indifferent  individuals  who  think  themselves 
neutral,  must  be  overcome  before  any  progress  can  be 
made.  The  Apostle  John  looks  on  this  class  of  men 
as  specially  objectionable  and  writes  of  them:  "  I  would 
they  were  cold  or  hot."  Whatever  advancement  is  se- 
cured must  be  by  overcoming  the  opposition  and  also 
lifting  the  dead  weight  of  the  people  who,  "  did  not 
care  which."  The  neutral  man  is  found  to  be  a  dead 
weight  on  the  wrong  side  of  every  reform. 

It  is  upon  the  indifferent  class,  upon  those  in  what 
we  may  call  a  subconscious  moral  condition,  that  the 
reformer  does  his  work.  His  antagonist  he  may  not 
expect  to  win  to  his  position,  but  if  he  is  able  to  force 
the  issue  upon  such  as  have  not  yet  declared  themselves, 
he  may  recruit  the  ranks  of  those  who  make  love  the 
principle  of  social  action.  Elijah  as  he  confronts  a  peo- 
ple wavering  between  God  and  Baal  forces  the  issue  by 
his  demand :  "  Choose  ye  this  day  whom  ye  will  serve." 
It  is  to  gain  this  end  of  forcing  men  to  take  sides  that 


SOCIAL  FORCES  177 

the  champion  of  the  Prohibition  cause  strives  to  bring 
on  a  collision  between  the  Church  and  the  saloon.  He 
believes  that  if  men  can  be  forced  into  a  choice  of  sides, 
the  victory  will  be  won.  The  citizen  has  not  the  right 
to  be  indifferent  to  any  question  which  concerns  the 
social  welfare. 

The  individual  and  the  social  spirit  furnish  the  field 
for  the  battle  of  the  standards.  The  principle  of  love, 
which  is  the  principle  of  the  Kingdom,  is  embodied  in 
Jesus  Christ;  the  principle  of  force  which  is  the  ethical 
standard  of  the  world  may  be  found  scientifically  stated 
by  Weismann.  By  this  statement  it  is  not  meant  to 
assert  that  any  great  number  of  people  accept  the  extreme 
Darwinism  taught  by  Weismann,  with  any  idea  of  en- 
dorsing that  author  or  his  views;  what  is  asserted  is 
that  the  ethical  standard  which  dominates  social  action 
is  the  application  of  the  doctrine  which  goes  by  the 
name  of  Weismann.  Many  of  those  who  fall  under  this 
classification  may  never  have  heard  of  Weismann,  might 
even  deny  the  validity  of  evolution;  but  nevertheless 
they  might  find  a  fair  scientific  basis  for  their  ethical 
theory  in  Weismann's  writings. 

Darwin  had  made  natural  selection  the  center  of  his 
system,  but  he  added  to  it  use-inheritance  and  sexual 
selection  to  aid  in  the  explanation  of  progress  Weis- 
mann discarded  the  two  last  factors  as  having  no  place 
in  his  scheme  of  evolution,  so  that  it  will  be  necessary  in 
explaining  the  position  of  Weismann  to  deal  only  with 
natural  selection.  It  is  not  necessary  to  the  purpose 
here  to  enter  into  a  discussion  of  Weismann's  "  germ 


178  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

plasm  "  which  is  passed  on  unchanged  from  parent  to 
child  through  the  generations ;  nor  is  it  necessary  to  deal 
with  "  amphimixis,"  the  chance  combination  of  the  pater- 
nal and  maternal  packets  of  "  germ  plasm  "  which  allows 
for  variation.  The  interest  here  lies  in  its  ethical  appli- 
cation, so  that  we  are  only  concerned  with  natural  selec- 
tion as  an  ethical  standard. 

Since  natural  selection,  according  to  Weismann,  is 
the  only  factor  in  progress,  struggle  is  the  essential  ele- 
ment. Nature  is  prodigal  in  the  production  of  life  and 
competition  is  the  method  by  which  the  unfit  are  weeded 
out,  while  the  strong  possess  the  land.  Mr.  Kidd  builds 
his  book  on  "  Social  Evolution  "  on  this  foundation,  fol- 
lowing Weismann  closely  for  the  most  part,  so  that  one 
will  gain  a  fair  understanding  of  what  the  doctrine  of 
natural  selection  means  when  put  to  the  service  of  ethics 
by  reading  Mr.  Kidd's  discussion.  Mr.  Kidd  and  Weis- 
mann agree  that  any  limitation  on  the  struggle  between 
individual  organisms  would  stop  the  progressive  move- 
ment and  would  mean  social  stagnation  to  the  society  in 
which  it  occurs.  It  is  true,  they  would  admit,  that  we 
may  go  down  in  the  fight  for  life;  but  we  must  die 
if  we  do  not  fight.  Only  in  this  way  may  the  vitality 
of  society  be  preserved  and  new  conditions  created.  We 
must  fight  or  die,  or  fight  and  die.  Struggle  is  the 
first  necessity  in  life. 

It  is  through  this  relentless  struggle  where  each  must 
fight  for  his  own  hand  that  the  fittest  is  picked  out  and 
the  "  survival  of  the  fittest "  is  assured.  The  vanquished 
failed  because  he  deserved  to  fail,  therefore  it  is  the 


SOCIAL  FORCES  179 

necessary  conclusion  that  the  winner  always  has  the 
righteous  cause  and  to  him  be  the  glory.  The  winner 
is  to  be  commended  because  he  won;  the  loser  con- 
demned because  he  lost.  The  conclusion  is  not  simply 
that  might  makes  right,  but  that  might  is  right.  To 
interfere  in  the  struggle  between  two  individuals,  or  two 
nations,  in  such  a  way  as  to  influence  the  result,  might 
bring  about  the  survival  of  the  unfit;  it  is  only  when 
the  victor  spoils  the  slain  that  we  are  certain  which  is 
right  in  the  quarrel. 

Now  while  this  struggle  for  life  is  going  on  among 
the  individuals  of  the  race,  it  is  the  environment  which 
chooses  that  type  of  individual,  brute  or  human,  which 
suits  the  conditions  existing  at  the  time  and  place.  That 
is  what  is  meant  by  natural  selection.  In  the  biological 
field,  the  environment  is  material  nature,  therefore  thought 
and  purpose  have  nothing  to  do  with  selection.  Both 
Weismann  and  Darwin  agree  that  the  variation  in  the 
individual  which  enables  him  to  survive,  has  not  been 
foreseen,  coming  in  casually.  Variations  are  all  in  ran- 
dom directions  and  it  is  the  environment  which  rejects 
the  multitude  of  the  unfit  and  selects  the  one  which  is 
best.  We  may  get  the  situation  before  our  mind  by 
conceiving  that  all  the  roads  which  lead  onward  appear 
equally  good,  yet  all  but  one  are  blind  alleys  lacking 
outlets ;  the  individual  whose  random  step  takes  him  in 
the  road  which  is  open,  survives,  the  others  perish.  Dar- 
win claimed  that  natural  selection  had  no  place  for 
teleology,  no  evidence  of  purpose  was  in  the  process. 
There  was  no  place  for  phophecy  since  none  knew  what 


180  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

variation  might  come  in  the  individual,  none  knew 
which  might  be  selected  by  the  environment;  all  must 
draw  at  random  and  most  of  the  cards  were  blanks. 

Mr.  Spencer  taught  that  beyond  the  struggle  which 
was  present,  lay  an  age  when  struggle  would  cease  and  a 
static  condition  ensue  in  which  egoism  is  to  balance 
altruism  in  his  ideal  society;  but  Weismann  insists  that 
when  struggle  ceases,  retrogression  sets  in.  There  is 
no  stage  between  evolution  and  dissolution,  at  which 
the  race  may  pause.  At  this  point  where  struggle  has 
been  eliminated  Weismann  puts  his  stage  which  he  calls 
panmixia,  where  the  hostile  social  elements  have  coal- 
esced through  marriage,  or  otherwise,  so  that  competition 
is  unable  to  work.  This  is  the  beginning  of  social  death, 
says  Weismann. 

With  this  statement  of  Weismann's  biological  views, 
their  application  to  ethics  is  not  difficult.  He  would  argue 
that  our  present  moral  attainments  have  been  reached 
by  the  struggle  to  the  death  between  individuals,  between 
institutions,  between  ideals.  Each  man  must  fight  for 
himself  since  if  he  seeks  to  aid  the  weak  that  are  being 
crushed,  it  will  imperil  his  own  success ;  also  it  will  aid 
in  the  preservation  of  the  unfit.  We  have  no  cause  to 
extend  our  sympathy  to  a  weaker  people  in  its  contest 
with  its  stronger  enemy,  since  the  very  fact  of  weakness 
is  an  evidence  that  it  should  be  eliminated.  If  any 
course  wins  in  life  it  is  a  proof  of  its  Tightness  since 
in  natural  selection  it  is  the  environment  that  selects,  a 
premise  which  makes  the  end  justify  the  means.  The 
God  of  things-as-they-are  is  the  one  we  should  worship. 


SOCIAL  FORCES  181 

This  is  what  we  may  call  the  doctrine  of  natural 
selection  as  applied  to  ethics,  or  the  creed  of  Weismann- 
ism  and  it  is  taken  here  as  the  social  force  with  which 
the  teachings  and  the  principles  of  Jesus  find  themselves 
in  conflict.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  some  space  has 
been  given  to  its  statement  and  more  allowed  to  its  dis- 
cussion. If  existence  determines  Tightness,  if  worth  is 
measured  by  survival,  then  the  Kingdom  of  God  is  not 
an  ideal ;  indeed,  there  is  no  place  for  an  ideal.  Changes 
are  casual,  rather  than  the  working  out  of  a  conscious 
purpose.  Starting  from  a  premise  such  as  this,  it  is 
easy  to  see  why  the  scientist  looks  upon  the  teachings 
of  Jesus  as  inapplicable  at  the  present  time  and  upon 
the  Kingdom  of  God  as  the  fabric  of  a  vision.  Professor 
Small  recently  said  to  his  class :  "  It  is  possible  that  in 
some  future  time  men  shall  obey  teachings  such  as  Jesus 
gave,  but  the  guide  for  present  action  is  the  common 
consensus  of  practical  judgments  of  humanity."  The 
present  demand  is  to  adapt  oneself  to  the  environment 
in  which  he  finds  himself.  Conformity  to  the  social 
environment  becomes  the  sole  duty  of  each.  The  martyr 
is  a  sinner  against  his  time.  He  suffers  greatly  because 
he  failed  to  adapt  himself  to  his  selecting  environment. 
Does  this  not  express  the  dominant  ethical  theory  of  our 
own  time?  Mr.  Kipling  and  his  compeers  preach  it 
as  a  sacred  duty  of  the  ruling  nations  to  compel  the  peo- 
ples that  are  less  advanced  in  industrial  improvements, 
to  conform  to  the  type  of  the  winning  race.  It  is  their 
business  to  eliminate  the  weak  and  preserve  the  strong. 

Is  it  not  the  spoken,  or  unspoken,  word  of  the  great 


i82  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

majority  that  things  are  well  as  they  are?  Is  not  our 
trade  balance  good,  our  market  firm,  our  business  flour- 
ishing? It  is  exceedingly  difficult  to  convince  a  popular 
audience  that  there  is  any  great  moral  turpitude  in  a 
method  of  business  which  results  in  material  prosperity. 
This  conclusion  is  not  consciously  based  on  natural  selec- 
tion applied  in  the  ethical  sphere,  but  it  appears  to  be  a 
fact  nevertheless  that  the  theory  of  natural  selection 
comes  in  to  uphold  a  certain  system  of  ethics. 

Does  the  Doctrine  of  Weismann  Hold  in  Biology? 

Professor  Poulton  in  explaining  natural  selection,  takes 
the  case  of  the  caterpillar,  some  species  of  which  have 
been  found  with  something  resembling  a  thorn  upon  their 
back.  Others  of  the  family  have  been  noticed  which 
erect  themselves  in  such  a  way  that  they  closely  resemble 
a  shoot  upon  the  tree.  Now  it  is  clear  that  because  of 
this  likeness  to  the  branch  on  which  they  are,  they  will 
be  to  a  good  degree  immune  from  the  attacks  of  birds 
and  other  enemies.  They  can  not  be  distinguished  at  a 
little  distance  from  the  branch  on  which  they  feed.  The 
ordinary  form  of  caterpillar,  being  more  easily  seen,  will 
be  eaten,  while  these  variations  from  the  ordinary  type 
will  survive.  How  did  this  variation  come  about  which 
enables  this  particular  caterpillar  to  survive  while  the 
more  common  forms  perish?  Evidently  the  caterpillar 
did  not  study  out  the  situation  and  conclude  that  if  it 
could  stand  on  its  head  it  would  be  like  a  shoot  on  the 
branch;  and  it  is  equally  evident  that  the  other  type 
did  not  plan  the  thorn  upon  its  back.     The  Darwinian 


SOCIAL  FORCES  183 

would  tell  us  that  it  is  simply  a  casual  variation  which 
happened  to  suit  the  environment. 

It  is  not  hard  to  see  that  when  the  caterpillar  does 
resemble  a  thorn  upon  the  branch  that  in  the  struggle 
for  life  among  the  various  creatures  which  prey  on  this 
species,  this  caterpillar  has  a  decided  advantage.  It 
will  have  a  better  opportunity  to  live  and  rear  a  progeny 
with  like  growths,  so  that  a  new  kind  of  caterpillar  is  in 
the  field. 

But  is  it  final  to  say  that  it  came  about  by  cnance? 
If  the  coincidence  which  brought  about  this  particular 
form  is  simply  mechanical,  if  there  is  no  design  in  the 
case,  perhaps  such  a  conclusion  may  be  accepted.  But 
there  is  another  authority  on  the  subject  of  heredity 
which  says  that  all  things  "  brought  forth  after  their 
kind  " ;  and  it  may  be  quite  as  scientific  to  make  the 
claim  that  the  variation  mentioned  was  simply  the  un- 
folding of  the  characteristics  in  the  life  germ,  as  that 
it  was  "casual."  It  is  a  commonplace  that  the  acorn 
contains  the  future  oak,  or  even  the  future  oaks,  so 
that  the  divergence  in  oak  trees  need  not  be  laid  to 
random  variations. 

But  this  is  looking  at  the  matter  of  variation  only  from 
one  standpoint.  Science  considers  the  subject  from  the 
standpoint  of  the  part ;  philosophy  from  that  of  the  whole. 
It  would  seem  unquestionable  that  the  conclusions  of 
science  should  agree  with  philosophy ;  also  that  the  philo- 
sophic conclusions  should  be  verifiable  by  science.  Now 
it  is  agreed  by  modern  philosophers  that  the  universe  is 
in  some  sense  organic,  and  the  conditions  of  an  organism 


184  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

demand  a  vital  relationship  between  part  and  part,  also 
between  the  parts  and  the  whole.  It  demands  that  each 
part  shall  perform  its  proper  function  in  the  organism 
and  contribute  to  the  interests  of  the  whole.  How  then 
can  the  idea  of  "  struggle  "  between  the  parts  be  the 
fundamental  principle  of  development?  How  could  one 
assert  it  as  scientific  truth  that  the  changes  which  come 
about  are  only  random  variations?  It  is  not  proposed 
here  to  deny  that  natural  selection  is  a  factor  in  the 
development  of  the  lower  forms  of  life,  but  to  deny 
that  it  is  the  dominant  partner  in  the  process.  Natural 
selection  may  eliminate  the  unfit,  it  may  have  some  part 
in  strengthening  the  fit,  but  it  fails  to  explain  how  the 
fitness  arises. 

Another  thing  to  be  considered  is  that  if  life  is  organic, 
including  its  various  forms,  it  can  not  mean  a  struggle 
each  for  itself.  How  far  Drummond  remedies  the  defect 
in  natural  selection  by  his  bringing  in  of  struggle  for 
the  life  of  others,  need  not  be  considered  here.  Yet  it 
does  not  appear  that  even  Drummond  looked  at  the  case 
from  the  standpoint  of  the  whole.  Paul  brings  out  this 
organic  relationship  in  the  higher  life  when  he  writes 
"  none  of  us  liveth  to  himself,  and  no  man  dieth  to  him- 
self." If  this  rule  is  applicable  to  the  lower  life  as  well, 
and  Mr.  Herbert  Spencer  claims  that  it  is,  then  co-opera- 
tion rather  than  struggle  is  the  rule. 

Mr.  Spencer  has  attempted  a  cosmic  philosophy,  which 
assumes  to  bind  the  universe  together  under  the  operation 
of  certain  laws.  From  this  premise  he  argues  the  inade- 
quacy of  natural  selection  as  the  cause  of  progress.    To 


SOCIAL  FORCES  185 

make  the  matter  clear  we  might  consider  a  pioneer  village 
in  the  colonial  days.  In  its  beginning  each  settler  would 
be  a  farmer  in  some  measure,  since  food  had  to  be  gotten 
from  the  soil  and  there  would  be  little  division  of  labor. 
Gradually  the  community  becomes  more  complex  in  its 
interests  and  each  household  becomes  more  dependent 
on  the  labor  of  others.  No  longer  do  all  till  the  ground, 
but  we  find  one  man  building  houses,  another  making 
shoes,  another  weaving  cloth.  The  community  is  grow- 
ing from  the  simple  to  the  complex,  through  division 
of  labor.  Shall  we  say  that  we  find  in  that  village  life 
an  illustration  of  natural  selection  through  struggle; 
or  is  it  not  rather  a  growth  through  co-operation  ?  Weis- 
mann  and  Darwin  would  have  to  defend  the  former 
proposition  and  Mr.  Spencer  the  latter. 

Evidently  when  the  scientific  doctors  differ,  one  need 
not  be  discredited  scientifically  because  he  exercises  the 
same  privilege. 

The  purpose  of  this  chapter  is  to  show  that  the  bio- 
logical doctrine  of  natural  selection,  whether  it  is  called 
Darwinism,  or  more  exactly  Weismannism,  should  not 
be  applied  to  the  settlement  of  moral  questions  as  is 
being  done ;  and  as  it  is  open  to  serious  question  whether 
natural  selection  may  claim  dominion  in  its  proper  sphere 
of  biology,  we  may  with  greater  assurance  deny  its  claim 
to  rule  in  ethics. 

Environment  Selects. 

There  is  one  further  point  to  be  noted  before  leaving 
the  biological  phase  of  the  subject.     The  environment 


186  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

makes  the  selection.  In  the  case  of  the  caterpillar  its 
environment  would  be,  for  the  most  part,  the  tree  on 
which  it  fed,  the  quality  of  air,  and  the  animals  which 
sought  its  life.  It  will  survive  as  it  is  able  to  meet  all 
these  conditions.  The  animal  has  nothing  to  do  with 
selecting  itself;  its  life  or  death  is  determined  solely 
by  environment.  Hundreds  fall  in  the  struggle  as  they 
prove  unfit  and  only  the  few  meet  the  test.  It  does  not 
seem  that  there  would  be  much  use  of  Jesus  Christ  com- 
ing to  die  that  he  might  redeem  a  world  built  on  that 
plan. 

The  Application  of  Natural  Selection  to  Ethics. 

The  question  now  to  be  studied  is  whether  the  rule 
of  the  woods  and  the  fields,  if  it  is  not  discredited  even 
there,  may  be  properly  taken  as  the  ethical  guide  in 
human  affairs.  According  to  this  conception  there  is 
no  merit  in  feeding  the  hungry  and  clothing  the  naked. 
Rather  is  that  class  of  actions  the  perpetuation  of  weak- 
lings whose  very  need  shows  their  unfitness  to  survive. 
The  difference  of  opinion  which  one  individual  has  with 
another  is  but  casual.  There  is  no  absolute  standard 
of  right  and  wrong,  since  this  is  determined  only  by  what 
the  environment  demands.  If  one  is  in  Rome  he  meets 
the  conditions  of  life  by  doing  what  the  Romans  do.  To 
set  up  a  standard  of  life  which  is  contrary  to  the  pre- 
vailing belief  and  practice,  to  try  to  live  his  life  by  such 
standard,  is  not  an  evidence  of  goodness.  Rather  does 
it  evidence  an  unfitness  to  survive.  As  the  environment 
is  the  final  judge  of  righteousness  and  unrighteousness, 


SOCIAL  FORCES  187 

one  belief  may  be  as  good  as  another  until  it  has  been 
tested  by  public  opinion.  If  the  crowd  rejects  it,  it  is  not 
good.  There  is  no  justification  for  the  one  man,  or  the 
few  men,  standing  against  the  crowd.  It  is  not  a  ques- 
tion of  what  the  moral  law  demands,  it  is  not  a  ques- 
tion oi  what  the  teachings  of  Jesus  demand,  it  is  only 
to  consider  what  are  the  demands  of  environment. 

Is  Natural  Selection  in  Ethics  the  Popular  View? 

According  to  the  view  taken  in  this  chapter,  the  ques- 
tion should  be  answered  affirmatively.  Not  that  there 
is  not  continual  and  effectual  agitation  for  the  relief  of 
the  defective  classes,  not  that  "  struggle  "  is  not  checked 
at  many  points;  but  that  the  general  teaching  of  the 
press  and  the  public  administration,  is  based  upon  the 
ideas  which  belong  to  the  doctrine  of  natural  selection. 
It  is  to  be  gladly  affirmed  that  war  plays  a  decreasing 
part  in  the  history  of  the  race;  though  it  is  yet  true 
that  the  burden  of  armaments  in  preparation  for  war, 
weighs  heavily  on  the  civilized  world.  It  is  no  small 
gain  that  private  war  has  been  so  generally  suppressed, 
and  internal  affairs  of  State  adjusted  in  so  many  cases 
by  reason  rather  than  by  force. 

But  it  is  questionable  if  the  method  of  suppressing 
the  weaker  portions  of  humanity,  has  not  changed  its 
method  rather  than  its  principle.  We  have  ceased  to 
cut  throats  in  the  old  brotherly  fashion,  yet  the  cutting 
of  prices  looks  frequently  to  the  same  end.  The  strong 
individual  breaks  down  his  opponent  by  mental  superior- 
ity in  the  particular  field  and  not  by  superior  muscle,  yet 


188  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

when  one  takes  into  account  the  material  addition  which 
immense  capital  gives  to  the  man  that  wields  it,  the 
difference  between  the  old  and  the  new  conditions  is 
not  so  great.  Civilization  has  veneered  the  ancient  villain 
of  the  game  of  war. 
The  Industrial  Situation. 

If  the  doctrine  of  Weismann  is  to  have  a  dominant 
place  in  business,  it  means  that  sentiment  must  be  elim- 
inated from  the  methods  that  are  used.  It  means  that 
competition  of  each  against  all,  shall  go  on  unchecked 
by  any  feeling  of  sympathy  that  would  affect  the  making 
of  a  contract.  President  Walker,  in  his  work  on  Political 
Economy,  has  denned  competition  in  the  terms  of  natural 
selection.  "Whenever  any  economic  agent  does  or  for- 
bears anything  under  the  influence  of  any  sentiment  other 
than  the  desire  of  doing  the  least  and  taking  the  most 
he  can  in  exchange,  be  that  patriotism,  or  gratitude,  or 
charity,  or  vanity  leading  him  to  do  any  otherwise  than 
as  self  interest  would  prompt,  in  that  case  also,  the  rule 
of  competition  is  departed  from."  As  President  Walker 
argues  for  competition  as  the  principle  of  business  activity 
he  may  fairly  be  taken  as  an  exponent  of  Weismannism 
in  industry. 

Now  if  this  conception  of  competition  was  actually 
realized  in  the  factory  and  the  market,  natural  selection 
would  have  the  field  to  itself  and  just  so  far  as  the  prin- 
ciple of  "  the  longest  tooth  and  the  sharpest  claw  "  has 
its  way,  this  is  the  case.  Such  a  conclusion  would  bar 
morals  out  of  business  transactions  and  leave  the  same 
principle  for  the  market  as  the  battlefield. 


SOCIAL  FORCES  189 

How  far  is  it  realized?  It  is  probably  an  exaggerated 
statement,  though  it  is  current,  that  ninety  per  cent,  of 
the  business  men  fail  at  some  period  in  life.  However 
this  may  be  the  percentage  of  such  failures  is  very  large. 
In  many  cases  the  failure  finds  its  sufficient  explanation 
in  incompetence,  yet  it  appears  to  be  true  that  the  ma- 
jority are  crushed  by  combinations  of  capital,  a  result 
which  no  amount  of  sagacity  could  have  prevented.  It 
is  in  many  cases  a  trial  of  strength  in  which  the  one  who 
can  command  the  most  capital  is  able  to  crush  his  rivals 
in  the  race,  and  he  looks  upon  it  as  a  mere  matter  of 
business  to  do  so.  He  plans  his  campaign  and  carries  it 
through  as  does  a  general  when  he  forces  his  enemy 
from  one  point  to  another  in  his  retreat  before  a  superior 
force. 

It  has  been  said  that  the  purpose  on  the  battlefield  is 
to  exterminate,  while  in  business  it  is  only  to  conquer, 
but  this  is  scarcely  a  complete  statement  of  the  case.  If 
a  soldier  is  killed  on  the  field,  he  can  be  left  to  lie  where 
he  falls  till  there  is  leisure  to  scoop  for  him  his  shallow 
grave,  while  his  comrades  close  up  the  ranks  and  march 
on;  but  each  wounded  man  takes  three  from  the  ranks, 
since  two  must  aid  their  wounded  comrade  to  the  rear. 
In  business,  men  do  not  seek  to  kill,  but  to  disable.  Of 
the  two  thousand  empty  store  rooms  in  the  city  of 
Chicago  some  years  ago,  many  of  the  former  proprietors 
found  their  places  behind  the  counters  of  the  department 
stores  which  had  crushed  their  little  ventures. 

Very  few  are  the  railroads  of  today  that  are  held  by 
the  men  who  sunk  their  fortunes  in  them  at  the  first, 


ipo  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

for  the  reorganizations  through  which  the  railroad  com- 
panies have  passed,  have  reared  the  present  business  on 
the  ruins  of  the  former  companies,  which  proved  them- 
selves unfit.  Then  when  the  business  has  been  wrecked, 
society  is  left  to  care  for  the  wounded,  and  also  to  pay 
the  expenses  of  the  war  in  increased  prices  to  the  sur- 
vivor. 

We  have  our  organizations  of  working  men  on  one 
side,  and  of  capitalists  upon  the  other,  standing  for  differ- 
ent things,  yet  both  parties  follow  the  rules  of  war,  and 
do  not  hesitate  to  plant  the  blow  where  it  will  draw  most 
blood.  The  union  orders  a  strike  when  the  employer 
has  the  most  orders  in  hand,  that  he  may  be  forced 
to  make  the  required  concession;  while  the  employer 
takes  the  opportunity  to  reduce  wages  when  the  artisan 
can  not  resist.  The  battle  usually  goes  in  the  favor  of 
the  employer,  because  capital  can  afford  to  wait  with 
the  possibility  of  recovering  lost  ground  by  the  higher 
prices  of  a  reduced  stock.  But  the  grip  of  hunger  will 
not  allow  the  laborer  to  wait,  so  that  he  must  accept  the 
terms  offered.  Now  it  is  not  claimed  that  this  correctly 
states  the  attitude  of  all  employers,  or  of  all  employees; 
what  is  sought  in  this  case  is  the  general  principle  on 
which  industrial  operations  are  based. 

Another  fact  which  points  to  the  same  conclusion 
is  the  eagerness  with  which  the  commercial  countries 
are  grasping  after  undeveloped  territory  which  may 
promise  a  market  for  their  excess  of  goods.  No  question 
of  treaty  stipulations,  or  of  human  rights,  is  allowed 
to  tip  the  balance  toward  justice,  where  conquest  may 


SOCIAL  FORCES  191 

open  a  new  field  for  commercial  exploitation.  Why  are 
the  commercial  countries  not  able  to  find  consumers 
within  their  own  limits  for  the  goods  which  they  pro- 
duce, that  they  must  seize  colonial  possessions  at  such 
a  cost  of  blood  and  treasure?  Clearly  not  because  the 
people  at  home  have  all  the  economic  goods  that  they 
might  profitably  use.  The  most  plausible  answer  is 
that  the  relentless  competition  has  taken  from  the  masses 
the  power  to  purchase,  though  not  the  wish  to  consume. 
So  we  see  the  Governments,  in  order  to  extend  their 
commerce,  burdening  their  people  with  heavy  war  debts 
which  diminish  yet  more  their  power  to  purchase  what 
the  market  affords. 

This  fatal  policy  which  shortens  the  actual  market  at 
home,  to  win  a  possible  market  abroad,  seems  to  show 
that  the  accepted  industrial  principle  must  be  at  fault, 
since  it  thus  works  disaster  to  the  people,  as  well  as  to 
the  industrial  interests  involved.  The  suggestion  may  be 
worth  making  that  the  acceptance  of  the  ethics  of  Jesus 
in  the  conduct  of  our  great  enterprises,  might  make  it 
unnecessary  to  seek  out  some  less  developed  people, 
where  the  market  must  be  opened  and  kept  open  with  the 
bayonet.  The  application  of  the  ethics  of  natural  selection 
within  the  national  group  leads  to  its  application  between 
the  nations. 

The  Political  Situation. 

It  seems  to  admit  of  proof  that  the  ethics  of  the 
1  struggle  for  life "  is  dominant  at  the  present  day  in 
industry;   we  may  now  consider  whether  the  same  con- 


192  SOCTAL  ETHICS 

elusion  may  be  drawn  in  regard  to  political  action.  This 
conclusion  may  be  reached  by  a  study  of  the  principles 
upon  which  political  action  is  based,  and  by  considering 
the  practice  under  those  principles. 

We  shall  get  at  the  principles  on  which  our  political 
structure  rests,  by  referring  to  the  written  constitution 
of  government  which  went  into  operation  in  1789.  Upon 
those  principles  the  government  was  erected  and  has 
been  administered  during  the  century  which  has  elapsed, 
seeming  to  suit  the  people  as  well  now  as  when  adopted. 
Every  one  who  has  shared  in  governmental  action  since 
its  adoption  has  done  so  upon  the  basis  of  this  funda- 
mental law,  and  so  long  as  the  present  law  is  in  force, 
there  is  no  other  legal  basis.  It  is  therefore  proper  to 
refer  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  as  con- 
taining the  principles  upon  which  politics  rest. 

The  Constitution,  in  turn,  rests  upon  its  preamble, 
or  enacting  clause,  which  reads :  "  We  the  people  .  .  . 
do  ordain  and  establish  this  Constitution  for  the  United 
States  of  America."  This  legal  enactment  expressly 
states  that  the  source  of  political  authority  is  in  the  peo- 
ple ;  and  while  this  means  the  organic  people,  rather  than 
any  number  of  individuals,  it  remains  true  that  the  will 
of  the  organism  must  find  its  expression  through  the 
majority.  According  to  any  democratic  conception  of 
the  State  it  could  not,  and  should  not,  be  otherwise. 
But  if  the  ultimate  power  is  lodged  with  the  majority, 
if  the  majority  is  the  source  of  law  and  right,  do  we  not 
have  the  doctrine  of  natural  selection  where  the  variant 
individual  or  minority  must  depend  for  the  right  to  exist 


SOCIAL  FORCES  193 

upon  the  environment,  the  majority?  It  is  quite  true 
mat  the  minority  is  itself  a  part  of  the  environment, 
yet  it  is  so  far  a  subordinate  part  that  it  can  not  regulate 
it.  Comte  argued,  and  his  point  is  made  frequently  in 
these  days,  that  since  the  individual  is  a  member  of  the 
organism,  that  he  should  submit  to  it.  But  suppose  the 
majority  is  wrong,  must  the  individual  accept  their  con- 
clusion and  act  upon  it?  By  this  method,  must  not  right 
and  wrong  be  decided  by  a  count  of  heads?  Comte 
taught  that  humanity  is  the  God  of  the  individual.  Hu- 
manity is  the  end  of  his  service,  the  object  of  his  wor- 
ship. Taking  such  a  premise  as  the  basis  of  reasoning, 
it  is  clear  that  if  the  individual  should  set  his  opinion, 
or  his  act,  against  the  crowd,  he  would  be  guilty  of 
impiety.  Is  not  that  the  idea  which  underlies  much  of 
the  social  teaching  of  the  day?  Not  that  the  extreme 
position  taken  by  Comte  is  accepted  in  words,  but  there 
is  a  suggestive  likeness  in  the  conclusions  drawn. 
Not  infrequently  is  it  asserted  in  the  press  and  elsewhere 
that  when  the  country  has  fairly  decided  on  a  course 
of  action,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  loyal  citizen  to  accept  that 
decision  and  act  upon  it.  A  citizen  may  object  to  war, 
but  once  it  is  declared,  he  is  under  obligation  to  support 
the  war,  however  unjust  the  cause  may  appear.  Such 
statements  have  been  current  coin  in  the  party  papers 
of  England  and  United  States  during  the  recent  wars. 
The  venders  of  such  sentiment  might  touch  elbows  with 
Auguste  Comte.  It  can  mean  nothing  short  of  this,  that 
the  individual  should  submit  his  conviction  to  the  decision 
of  the  social  environment,  the  mass  of  the  people. 


194  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

It  may  be  that  these  are  not  the  expressions  of  the 
social  mind,  but  their  currency  would  suggest  such  a 
conclusion.  The  teaching  runs  that  when  the  individual 
has  expressed  his  belief  he  should  then  be  ready  to  act 
with  the  crowd  against  his  belief.  This  means  nothing 
less  than  the  application  of  the  ethics  of  natural  selection 
in  the  discussion  and  settlement  of  the  questions  of  the 
day.  The  man,  or  the  opinion,  which  the  environment 
chooses,  is  the  fittest  to  survive. 

Now  if  the  will  of  the  people  is  ultimate,  must  one 
not  conclude  that  when  the  people  have  decided  on  any 
eourse,  the  citizen  is  in  duty  bound  to  subscribe  to  it  by 
act,  if  not  in  thought?  If  there  is  a  higher  will  than 
that  of  the  people  to  which  the  popular  will  is  subordinate, 
then  the  judgment  of  the  social  will  may  be  questioned, 
but  not  otherwise. 

Nor  does  it  appear  that  the  practice  of  politics  differs 
radically  from  the  principles  on  which  it  is  based.  Our 
method  of  treatment  of  the  Indian  during  "  a  century  of 
dishonor  "  shows  that  he  is  looked  upon  as  *  unfit "  and 
his  elimination  is  proceeding  with  more  or  less  rapidity. 
One  hears  less  frequently  the  saying  that  "  the  only  good 
Indian  is  a  dead  Indian,"  but  the  practice  has  not  suf- 
fered radical  change.  Treaties  which  secure  to  him  his 
land  are  seldom  binding  when  his  holding  becomes  valu- 
able. 

Specially  does  this  idea  show  itself  in  politics  when 
voters  are  urged  to  give  their  support  to  some  new  propo- 
sition, such  as  the  prohibition  of  the  liquor  traffic.  At 
once  is  the  question  broached  as  to  whether  the  project 


SOCIAL  FORCES  195 

can  receive  a  majority  of  votes,  and  if  this  does  not 
appear  probable  the  measure  is  chosen  which  is  likely  to 
have  the  popular  support,  even  if  the  individuals  them- 
selves are  not  in  sympathy  with  it.  There  is  a  dread  of 
voting  with  the  minority  which  has  considerable  effect 
in  deciding  how  ballots  shall  be  cast.  Who  has  not  met 
with  the  idea  of  being  "odd,"  as  a  controlling  influence 
in  the  choice  of  actions  ? 

Perhaps  the  individual  is  not  in  any  danger  from  the 
crowd,  yet  it  is  fair  to  say  that  where  "  the  will  of  the 
people,"  is  the  final  arbiter  of  individual  rights,  freedom 
is  on  a  precarious  footing.  The  Constitution  guarantees 
the  right  of  jury  trial,  but  the  liberal  use  of  the  injunction 
shows  how  this  may  be  set  aside  in  many  cases.  It  may 
be  that  the  judge  of  the  Equity  Court  will  guard  indi- 
vidual rights  as  surely  as  would  the  jury,  yet  it  means, 
to  a  large  extent,  the  suppression  of  jury  trial  in  any 
quarrel  between  employers  and  laborers.  Paper  guar- 
antees are  a  poor  defense  when  there  is  a  popular  demand 
that  they  be  set  aside.  All  these  instances  which  might 
be  multiplied,  suggest  the  conclusion  that  "conformity 
to  environment "  is  the  dominant  ethical  idea  in  our 
social  life.  How  frequently  is  the  epithet  of  traitor 
applied  to  the  man  who  proposes  to  criticise  political 
policies  supported  by  the  majority  ?  Continually  is  the 
effort  made  to  suppress  discussion  on  any  question  where 
the  popular  will  has  been  expressed. 

Now  it  is  frankly  admitted  that  the  conclusion  drawn, 
which  makes  natural  selection  the  ethical  creed  of  the 
"  world  "  of  this  age,  may  not  be  the  correct  one ;   nor 


196  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

is  it  beyond  question  that  the  "  world "  furnishes  the 
popular  creed;  yet  the  statement  is  ventured  that  when 
any  other  conclusion  is  taken  it  will  be  open  to  graver 
objections  than  the  one  offered  here. 

Dualism  in  Ethics. 

While  holding  the  belief  that  there  can  not  be  any 
reconciliation  between  these  conflicting  ethical  ideas,  it 
is  only  fair  to  state  that  Professor  Giddings  has  made  a 
proposal  of  that  kind  in  his  work  on  "  Democracy  and 
Empire."  Professor  Giddings  deals  with  the  idea  of 
natural  selection,  making  Nietsche  its  exponent,  and 
holding  with  Nietsche  and  Weismann  that  to  eliminate 
the  "  struggle  for  life  "  would  take  away  the  incentive 
for  human  effort.  This  would  result  in  "  panmixia " 
and  the  consequent  degeneration  of  the  people  concerned. 
Professor  Giddings  holds  that  both  social  ideals,  that  of 
natural  selection  and  the  teachings  of  Jesus,  are  necessary 
to  the  social  welfare.  He  allows  that  struggle  may  be 
eliminated  from  the  group  as  the  law  of  its  life,  but  that 
it  must  be  kept  in  working  order  somewhere  to  prevent 
stagnation.  He  would  admit  that  we  may  reach  the  time 
when  competition  of  the  natural  selection  type  would  be 
excluded  from  the  family  and  the  neighborhood  and 
even  from  the  State.  Within  these  limits  we  may  follow 
the  teachings  of  Jesus  and  become  bearers  of  each  other's 
burdens  without  incurring  the  disastrous  results  which 
Weismann  feared  from  "panmixia."  In  fact  Professor 
Giddings  would  teach  that  such  an  extension  of  the 
ethics  of  Jesus  might  be  of  great  advantage  to  the  society. 


SOCIAL  FORCES  197 

Up  to  this  point  Weismann  has  been  discarded,  but  for 
the  remainder  of  the  way  the  paths  of  Weismann  and 
Giddings  lie  together.  Internecine  strife  may  be  abol- 
ished, but  the  vitality  of  the  social  life  must  be  preserved 
by  struggle  between  the  nations.  Thus  Professor  Gid- 
dings proposes  to  divide  the  earth  between  these  two 
forces,  allowing  the  teachings  of  Jesus  to  have  free 
course  within  the  State,  but  giving  Weismann  his  way 
in  international  affairs.  It  must  be  admitted,  so  far  as 
international  affairs  are  concerned,  that  this  ideal  comes 
close  to  the  actual.  Whatever  may  be  said  as  to  the 
ethical  code  within  the  group  there  is  no  international 
code  of  ethics  except  force.  However,  neither  the  teach- 
ings of  Jesus,  nor  modern  philosophy,  makes  provision 
for  such  dualism  in  law  as  that  proposed  by  Professor 
Giddings.  There  is  no  suggestion  from  either  source 
of  a  division  of  territory  between  conflicting  laws.  One 
does  not  find  anywhere  in  the  teachings  of  the  Christ  a 
proposal  that  he  would  admit  of  division  of  the  world 
with  Weismann,  or  his  kind.  From  the  old  days  of 
blood  and  iron,  when  each  family,  and  tribe,  and  people, 
was  an  Ishmael  to  all  outside  its  limits,  have  come  down 
to  us  ideas  which  we  are  now  asked  to  accept  because 
of  the  trade-mark  of  science  upon  them,  as  if  baptizing 
them  with  a  new  name  might  change  their  character.  It 
is  a  pitiful  doctrine  that  the  strong  can  keep  his  strength 
only  by  shedding  the  blood  of  the  weak. 

The  Comparison  of  the  Social  Ideals. 

It  is  spirit  against  matter ;  love  against  force ;   experi- 


198  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

ence  against  faith.  Weismann  would  say  that  each  must 
struggle  for  his  own  hand;  Jesus  said  "love  your 
enemies."  The  former  argues  that  strength  comes 
through  resistance;  the  latter  that  it  comes  through 
sacrifice.  Where  such  antagonism  exists  there  can  be 
no  compromise.  Jesus  Christ  claims  the  social  life  as 
his  own,  and  means  that  the  Kingdom  shall  come  in  it 
so  completely  that  there  will  be  a  social  incarnation. 
Struggle  there  is  in  abundance  since  the  great  apostle 
to  the  Gentiles  draws  his  illustrations  from  the  arena 
and  the  race  course  and  proclaims  his  triumph  in  the 
words :  "  I  have  fought  the  good  fight."  Yet  this  is 
infinitely  removed  from  the  doctrine  of  struggle  incident 
to  natural  selection.  Jesus  stated  his  method  of  survival 
when  he  said :  "  He  that  would  be  greatest  among  you, 
let  him  be  servant  of  all." 

It  is  in  the  Christian's  confession  of  faith  that  the 
teachings  of  the  Christ  are  practical  in  method  and 
universal  in  application.  They  are  suited  to  the  needs 
of  the  social  life  and  no  less  to  the  intercourse  between 
States.  When  we  see  each  country  piling  its  frontiers 
with  fortresses  and  massing  its  sons  behind  stone  walls, 
through  dread  of  a  neighbor  who  is  wasting,  in  the  same 
costly  occupation,  an  amount  of  social  wealth  which 
would  lift  the  poor  of  the  land  from  poverty,  it  needs  no 
further  argument  than  the  statement  of  the  facts  to  show 
what  a  priceless  boon  it  would  be  to  the  nations  to  gain 
the  ethics  of  Jesus  as  the  rule  of  life.  While  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  different  countries  profess  friendship 
for  each  other,  the  fact  occasionally  comes  to  light,  that 


SOCIAL  FORCES  199 

at  the  same  time  spies  are  being  maintained  at  the  rival 
courts.  So  long  as  the  ethics  of  Weismann  dominate 
in  political  affairs,  must  the  peoples  waste  their  spiritual 
and  material  treasures  in  the  worship  of  the  strange 
god  of  force. 

Yet  Ormuzd  will  not  forever  strive  with  Ahriman, 
Jesus  with  Weismann,  though  the  end  be  far  in  the 
future.  For  a  time  must  the  Christian  citizen  accept 
the  standing  order :  "  Be  not  conformed  to  this  world ; 
but  be  ye  transformed."  The  refusal  to  conform  to 
environment  has  had  its  army  of  martyrs  to  whom  is 
due  the  progress  of  the  race,  for  the  ethics  of  Weismann 
are  as  old  as  human  selfishness.  In  the  advancement 
of  the  kingdom  there  must  always  be  those  who  "have 
come  out  of  great  tribulation,"  through  their  insistence 
upon  the  right  of  private  judgment  and  the  duty  of 
projecting  the  Kingdom  into  the  world. 

So  far,  environment  has  been  considered  as  the  scien- 
tist sees  it,  who  looks  upon  natural  selection  as  the 
ethical  standard.  But  when  our  view  is  enlarged  so  that 
the  fact  of  God,  which  Weismann  had  ignored,  is 
brought  into  our  plan,  the  character  of  environment 
undergoes  a  change.  What  by  the  scientist  of  Weis- 
mann's  belief  had  been  made  the  whole  of  environment 
is  now  seen  to  be  only  a  part,  even  a  subordinate  part. 
Conformity  to  environment  in  this  sense,  which  to  the 
Christian  is  its  only  meaning,  is  conformity  to  God.  The 
criticism  upon  the  scientist  is  that  he  has  dealt  with  a 
subordinate  part  of  the  field  as  if  it  were  the  whole,  and 
has   drawn   conclusions   from   insufficient   data. 


*oo  SOCIAL   ETHICS 

The  argument  of  this  chapter  may  be  briefly  stated. 
Since  and  before  God  became  incarnate  in  Jesus,  there 
has  been  radical  antagonism  between  what  Paul  calls 
"  the  world  "  and  the  Kingdom  which  the  Christ  came 
to  further ;  so  far  in  the  history  of  the  race  "  the  world  " 
has  been  the  dominant  social  force,  though  doubtless 
modified  at  every  point  by  the  ethics  of  Jesus.  At  the 
present  time  the  popular  standard  of  ethics  appears  to 
be  that  of  natural  selection  as  proposed  by  Weismann, 
which  is  in  direct  and  irreconcileable  opposition  to  the 
teachings  of  Jesus.  The  conformity  to  the  ideas  of  the 
crowd,  which  natural  selection  would  demand,  stands 
in  the  way  of  social  progress,  which  is  found  only  in 
the  progress  of  the  Kingdom.  The  question  is  raised 
whether  natural  selection  deserved  the  place  which  has 
been  assigned  to  it  in  biology,  and  its  application  in  the 
field  of  morals  is  altogether  denied.  The  suggestion  is 
also  made  that  the  scientist  in  failing  to  take  the  fact 
of  God  into  account  in  treating  environment,  has  left 
a  fatal  weakness  in  any  conclusions  which  he  may  draw 
from  his  partial  view  of  the  situation. 


From  Comte  to  Benjamin  Kidd,  Mackintosh;  Weismannism, 
Romanes;  Social  Evolution,  Kidd;  The  Romanes  Lecture  for 
1893,  Huxley;  Inadequacy  of  Natural  Selection,  Herbert  Spen- 
cer; Darwinism  in  Politics,  Ritchie;  Democracy  and  Empire, 
Giddings   (pp.34<>57)- 


THE  SOVEREIGNTY  OF  THE  STATE 

Sovereignty  is  an  attribute  of  will  and  is  not  found 
except  in  will.  If  the  State  did  not  have  mind,  there 
could  not  be  sovereignty  in  the  State.  This  is  the  con- 
clusion to  which  Mr.  Herbert  Spencer  comes  when  he 
argues  that  the  State  is  like  the  animal  organism,  having 
physical  powers  but  lacking  intelligence.  If,  as  he  claims, 
there  is  no  psychic  factor,  if  the  State  is  controlled  by 
physical  laws  alone,  then  has  the  State  no  more  of  sov- 
ereignty, no  more  of  character,  than  the  animal  to  which 
Mr.  Spencer  likens  it.  It  is  only  a  great  mechanism 
which  has  no  power  to  direct  its  course. 

Sovereignty  Includes  Choice. 

If  one  accepts  the  views  of  Mr.  T.  H.  Green,  the  long 
debate  which  has  gone  on  over  the  freedom  of  the  will 
is  without  justification.  Mr.  Green  says  that  the  expres- 
sion freedom  of  the  will  is  tautological  since  it  is  equiva- 
lent to  saying  the  freedom  of  the  free  thing.  It  is  in 
the  very  nature  of  will  to  be  free.  We  may  arrest  a 
person  and  shut  him  in  a  cell,  we  may  even  take  his  life, 
but  his  will  is  beyond  our  reach.  He  makes  what  choice 
he  will  in  spite  of  sheriff  and  executioner.  This  char- 
acteristic is  in  each  personality  which  has  will.  The 
State  has  this  power  of  choice  and  can  not  be  restrained 

201 


202  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

in  the  use  of  it.  When  Elijah  was  on  Carmel  he  de- 
manded of  the  assembled  court  and  commons  of  Israel: 
"  Choose  ye  this  day  whom  ye  will  serve."  They  had 
the  power  to  make  the  choice  and  would  be  held  respon- 
sible for  the  use  which  they  made  of  this  power. 

In  Israel  at  that  time  there  were  two  forces  struggling 
for  dominance,  the  one  idolatrous,  the  other  holding  for 
the  true  God.  These  two  elements  must  both  be  taken 
into  account  in  making  up  the  national  mind,  but  when 
the  mind  is  made  up  and  the  choice  is  made,  it  is  made 
without  restraint.  Neither  Elijah,  nor  any  one  else,  can 
compel  a  choice  against  their  will.  Often  in  the  State 
there  are  conflicting  elements,  but  when  the  social  mind 
is  made  up,  all  these  things  are  taken  into  account.  It 
is  under  these  conditions  that  the  choice  is  made  and 
responsibility  assumed. 

Sovereignty  Includes  the  Power  to  Control  the  Means 
for  Reaching  the  End  Chosen. 

It  is  at  this  point  that  we  must  distinguish  between 
wills  which  are  sovereign  and  those  that  are  subordinate. 
Paul  could  say  "  to  will  is  present  with  me,  but  to  do 
that  which  is  good  is  not."  The  limitation  did  not  lie 
in  his  power  of  choice,  but  in  his  ability  to  execute.  The 
same  limitation  exists  in  the  case  of  the  State.  Bluntschli 
says,  "  absolute  independence  does  not  exist  anywhere 
on  earth."  Humanly  speaking  the  limitations  of  State 
sovereignty  take  two  forms,  the  internal,  and  the  ex- 
ternal ;  the  former,  through  the  opposition  of  its  own  citi- 
zens, the  latter  through  the  opposition  of  other  States. 


SOVEREIGNTY  OF  THE  STATE  S03 

The  Internal  Phase  of  Limitation. 

While  the  will  of  the  State  has  been  made  known,  it  is 
frequently  true  that  there  is  an  opposition  party,  indeed 
it  is  of  much  account  that  such  opposition  should  exist 
to  furnish  the  needed  criticism  on  the  party  in  power. 
The  idea  is  more  common  than  one  could  wish,  in  the 
United  States  at  least,  that  when  the  State  has  expressed 
its  will,  the  minority  should  accept  the  result  as  final  in 
the  case.  Such  reasoning  fails  to  do  justice  to  the  pro- 
testing minority,  which  is  needed  as  an  incentive  to  the 
party  in  power  to  take  a  higher  moral  standard  of  action. 
We  need  our  reformers  and  they  are  always  in  the 
minority.  We  need  our  martyrs  who  resist  unto  the 
death  the  will  of  the  State  which  enjoins  injustice. 

This  opposition  by  the  individual  should  not  be  based 
on  the  plea  that  he  is  himself  sovereign,  or  a  fraction  of 
sovereignty.  The  statement  that  each  individual  is  a 
sovereign  may  be  allowed  to  pass  as  rhetoric,  but  nothing 
more.  He  is  an  individual  with  responsibilities  to  his 
manhood,  to  society,  and  to  God,  responsibilities  which 
can  be  met  only  by  faithful  witnessing  for  the  truth 
as  he  knows  it.  While  opposition  to  the  carrying  out 
of  the  social  will  is  not  sufficient  to  change  the  purpose, 
it  is  able  frequently  to  modify  the  methods  used.  This 
is  illustrated  in  the  temperance  agitation,  where  the 
voicing  of  opposition  to  the  prevailing  policy  has  forced 
concessions  from  the  liquor  power  at  a  number  of  points. 
Dominant  parties  are  usually  susceptible  to  criticism. 
To  criticise  is  the  function  of  the  minority. 


204  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

External  limitations  of  State  Sovereignty. 

In  the  family  of  nations,  of  which  each  State  is  a 
member,  there  is  legally  a  perfect  equality.  Differences  in 
population,  and  in  wealth,  give  no  pre-eminence  in  privi- 
lege. In  a  number  of  cases  there  is  a  union  among  the 
great  States  of  the  world  to  guarantee  the  territory  of 
one  whose  weakness  might  be  an  undue  temptation  to  a 
stronger  neighbor.  This  is  illustrated  in  the  case  of 
Switzerland  which  is  neutral  ground.  What  is  specially 
lacking  in  international  affairs  is  such  development  of 
the  consciousness  of  kind,  that  the  aggressions  of  the 
larger  upon  the  weaker  peoples  would  be  prevented  in 
each  case  by  a  union  of  the  other  powers.  So  long, 
however,  as  the  present  rapacity  for  territory  continues, 
such  a  condition  must  remain  a  prophecy. 

Yet  even  under  existing  conditions,  each  State  is  under 
bonds  to  keep  the  peace  in  many  respects.  In  many 
cases,  the  State  may  not  treat  its  own  subjects  as  it 
will  without  regard  to  the  judgment  of  other  States. 
America  interfered  between  Spain  and  her  Cuban  sub- 
jects, though  later  the  hollowness  of  this  act  was  shown 
by  the  adoption  of  Spanish  methods  in  the  Philippines. 
All  the  reason  why  the  United  States  is  not  called  to 
account  is  because  the  other  States  also  have  the  hunger 
for  territory  which  they  wish  to  gratify  in  like  fashion. 
Yet  while  the  public  sentiment,  which  one  may  hope 
is  gathering  against  all  aggression  of  the  strong  upon 
the  weak,  has  no  international  institution  through  which 
it   may   have   organized   and   effective   expression,   the 


SOVEREIGNTY  OF  THE  STATE  205 

various  States  are  exceedingly  anxious  to  place  their 
case  before  the  jury  of  humanity  in  such  a  way  as  to 
win  a  favorable  verdict.  State  action  is  Hmited  less  by 
what  other  States  have  done  than  by  what  they  might 
and  would  do  under  sufficient  provocation. 

The  Hague  Peace  Conference  was  a  move  in  the  right 
direction,  but  its  constitution  was  defective  in  that  its 
conclusions  were  not  binding  even  upon  the  States  there 
represented.  Many  of  its  provisions  were  disregarded 
by  the  powers  represented  before  the  report  of  the  con- 
ference had  been  made  public.  When  the  stronger  pow- 
ers shall  be  willing  to  forego  conquests  by  force  of  arms, 
we  may  gain  an  international  tribunal  which  will  limit 
the  sovereignty  of  the  States  by  the  impartial  judgment 
of  their  peers  in  the  family  of  nations. 
Sovereignty  Rests  on  Right. 

This  does  not  contradict  the  proposition  that  sover- 
eignty over  a  people  is  often  initiated  by  force.  The 
thought  is  that  force  can  not  be  made  the  permanent 
basis  on  which  sovereignty  rests.  States  have  been  de- 
frauded of  their  birthright  with  scarcely  the  grace  of  a 
contract  for  a  mess  of  pottage,  but  the  possession  may 
be  kept  only  by  a  return  to  justice.  Rousseau  said :  "  The 
strongest  is  not  strong  enough  to  be  always  master, 
unless  he  transforms  his  strength  into  right,  and  obe- 
dience into  duty."  Physical  force  is  an  element  in  sov- 
ereignty without  which  the  State  could  not  preserve  itself 
and  perform  its  functions.  But  the  real  strength  of  the 
State  will  be  indicated  by  the  infrequency  with  which  it 
must  appeal  to  the  arbitrament  of  force. 


206  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

The  strongest  State  is  not  the  one  which  must  depend 
upon  the  dread  of  its  standing  army  to  win  obedience 
to  its  laws,  but  rather  does  strength  consist  in  the  possi- 
bility of  dispensing  with  such  physical  aids  through  the 
loyalty  of  a  contented  people.  A  large  standing  army 
not  only  saps  the  industrial  and  moral  energy  of  a  people, 
but  it  is  a  standing  notice  of  internal,  or  external,  weak- 
ness. Not  only  is  it  a  source  of  national  weakness  when 
unwilling  populations  are  compelled  to  a  reluctant  sub- 
mission, but  it  reacts  disastrously  upon  the  social  life 
of  the  dominant  partner.  Only  social  damage  can  result 
when  one  section  of  a  people  becomes  the  taskmaster  of 
another.  Sovereignty  must  come  to  rest  upon  justice, 
else  insurrection  and  revolution  become  the  only  relief 
for  an  oppressed  people.  Force  may  rule  till  right  is 
ready,  provided  that  justice  is  not  too  slow  in  coming 
to  its  own. 
Sovereignty  and  Revolution. 

The  right  of  insurrection,  though  it  is  admitted  only 
as  a  last  resort,  is  recognized  as  the  protection  against 
an  arbitrary  will,  whether  of  the  monarch,  or  the  State. 
In  the  earlier  times,  when  the  ruler  could  call  out  his 
mailed  men  on  horseback  to  ride  down  the  hundreds  of 
defenseless  peasants,  this  had  less  meaning  than  at  the 
present,  when  the  farmer  on  his  croft,  with  smokeless 
powder  and  long-range  rifle,  is  more  than  a  match  for 
the  sergeant  with  his  squad  of  men.  Inventions  such  as 
those  of  recent  date  are  putting  into  the  hands  of  the  few, 
when  the  cause  is  worth  the  risking  of  their  lives,  a  power 
which  the  State  will  not  hastily  provoke.     The  time  is 


SOVEREIGNTY  OF  THE  STATE  207 

coming,  if  not  already  here,  when  men  must  be  governed 
by  reason  and  not  by  the  reckless  assertion  of  an  arbitrary 
will. 

Those  who  have  accepted  the  explanations  here  given 
will  be  prepared  to  differ  with  the  definition  given  by 
Bodin,  and  recently  repeated  by  Professor  Burgess,  that 
sovereignty  is  "absolute,  unlimited  power."  We  have 
seen  that  the  will,  whether  of  the  individual  or  the  State, 
is  not  limited  in  the  matter  of  choice,  but  is  limited  in 
the  carrying  out  of  that  choice. 
Sovereignty  is  Indivisible. 

This  is  admitted  as  soon  as  it  is  made  clear  that  sov- 
ereignty is  an  attribute  of  will.  The  State  can  have  but 
one  mind,  but  one  will,  therefore  the  old  claim  that  sov- 
ereignty could  be  divided  has  not  a  leg  on  which  to 
stand.  Sovereignty  can  not  be  divided  any  more  than 
will,  and  this  is  clearly  impossible. 

It  is  doubtless  true  that  the  settling  of  a  question  in 
philosophy  does  not  necessarily  end  it  as  a  question  in 
political  affairs,  yet  it  is  more  than  probable  that  a  correct 
conception  of  the  philosophy  of  the  State  might  have 
prevented  the  long  contest,  which  ended  with  the  Civil 
War,  over  the  question  of  the  division  of  sovereignty. 

The  South  held  stoutly  for  the  idea  that  the  respect- 
ive Commonwealths  were  sovereign;  indeed,  there  was 
scarcely  a  section  of  the  country  which  did  not  make  the 
same  claim,  as  the  occasion  demanded.  The  view  held  by 
the  North  during  the  period  before  the  Civil  War  was 
probably  voiced  by  Webster,  who  explained  that  sov- 
ereignty lay  partly  with  the  Union,  partly  with  the  Com- 


2o8  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

monwealths.  So  far  as  argument  could  be  made  from 
the  State  documents  and  official  statements,  the  South 
was  able  to  hold  its  own,  since  the  Commonwealth  Con- 
stitutions and  the  Articles  of  Confederation,  as  well  as 
various  other  authorities,  sustained  the  idea  of  the  sov- 
ereignty of  the  respective  Commonwealths. 

Three  positions  were  taken  in  regard  to  the  residence 
of  sovereignty.  Calhoun,  who  is  the  clearest  exponent 
of  the  belief  in  Commonwealth  sovereignty,  declared  that 
when  the  connection  of  the  colonies  with  Great  Britain 
was  broken  each  became  an  independent  Commonwealth. 
Each  was  as  truly  sovereign  as  Great  Britain  itself.  When 
the  Articles  of  Confederation  were  framed,  they  consti- 
tuted a  league  between  the  contracting  Commonwealths, 
which,  through  its  Congress,  was  to  deal  with  certain 
matters  of  common  interest,  but  not  to  trench  upon  the 
sovereignty  of  the  Commonwealths.  The  Constitution 
of  1787,  said  Calhoun,  did  not  change  this  condition  of 
things,  but  only  made  the  principles  of  the  Articles  of 
Confederation  more  effective  in  securing  the  ends  of  the 
league.  To  his  mind  there  was  no  American  nation,  as 
we  would  understand  the  term,  therefore  there  was  no 
national  government.  The  Commonwealths  retained  their 
sovereignty  and  therefore  had  the  right  to  nullify  any 
laws  enacted  at  Washington  which  were  not  acceptable 
to  the  Commonwealth  concerned.  Secession,  from  this 
standpoint,  is  only  the  withdrawing  from  the  voluntary 
league,  whose  treaty,  the  Constitution,  was  no  longer 
acceptable  to  the  contracting  parties.  Secession  would, 
thus,  not  be  in  the  nature  of  rebellion,  but  only  the  ex- 


SOVEREIGNTY  OF  THE  STATE  209 

ercising  of  the  legal  privilege  of   the   Commonwealth. 

The  national  view  held  that  it  was  a  nation,  not  thirteen 
colonies,  which  declared  its  independence  of  Great  Brit- 
ain. The  Articles  of  Confederation,  which  treated  the 
Commonwealths  as  sovereign  bodies,  did  not  express  the 
facts  in  the  case. 

When  the  struggle  for  leadership  of  the  German  people 
came  in  1866  between  Prussia  and  Austria,  the  ambas- 
sador of  the  former  said:  "His  Majesty,  my  king,  will 
not  regard  the  national  foundation  upon  which  the  con- 
federacy rests  as  destroyed  by  the  extinction  of  the  con- 
federacy. Prussia  holds  fast,  on  the  contrary,  to  these 
foundations,  and  to  the  unity  of  the  German  nation  under 
the  transitory  forms  of  expression."  This  was  the  na- 
tionalist view  of  sovereignty  in  the  United  States,  that 
in  spite  of  all  expressions  to  the  contrary,  in  statute,  and 
constitutions,  there  was  existent,  beneath  all  transitory 
forms,  a  national  life.  In  this  national  life,  sovereignty 
resided  and  not  at  any  time  in  the  respective  Common- 
wealths. 

Webster's  position,  which  has  been  accepted  until  re- 
cently in  legal  treatises,  rested  upon  a  compromise  be- 
tween the  idea  of  Commonwealth  and  of  national  sov- 
ereignty. He  held  that  the  respective  Commonwealths 
became  sovereign  on  their  separation  from  Great  Britain, 
thus  agreeing  with  Calhoun;  but  he  said  that  when  the 
Constitution  of  1787  was  framed  the  Commonwealths 
surrendered  a  portion  of  their  sovereignty  to  the  Union 
which  was  then  formed.  According  to  this  view,  sov- 
ereignty was  divided.    Such  a  compromise  could  not  be 


210  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

final,  and  the  question  of  where  sovereignty  resided  was 
submitted  to  the  arbitrament  of  war. 

When  one  understands  that  sovereignty  resides  in  the 
will,  he  sees  why  Webster's  contention  failed  in  philoso- 
phy as  it  also  failed  in  politics.  There  is  not  a  division 
of  sovereignty  between  the  Governments  of  the  nation 
and  the  Commonwealths,  since  sovereignty  rests  not  at  all 
in  either,  but  in  the  will  of  the  State  which  constituted 
the  Governments  of  Commonwealths  and  nation.  There 
is  one  people,  not  thirteen  or  forty-five.  There  is  one  will 
in  control,  which  is  morally  responsible  for  national  ac- 
tion; one  sovereign  power  resting  finally  upon  the  justice 
of  the  action. 

In  the  matter  of  sovereignty,  legal  decisions  are  ad- 
justing themselves  to  the  historical  facts,  so  that  the 
former  difference  of  view  between  the  historian,  who  held 
sovereignty  to  be  indivisible,  and  the  lawyers  who  fol- 
lowed Webster,  is  mainly  reconciled.  The  latest  legal 
treatises  accept  the  former  doctrine. 
Sovereignty  Can  Not  Be  Delegated. 

Authority  to  act  may  be  delegated  by  the  sovereign,  but 
sovereignty  can  be  alienated  only  by  the  extinction  of 
the  State.  This  is  clear  when  the  subject  is  considered 
from  the  psychical  point  of  view.  Sovereignty  belongs 
to  the  social  will,  so  that  the  loss  of  one  means  the  loss 
of  the  other,  also  the  loss  of  personality.  Texas  gave 
up  its  sovereignty  when  it  came  into  the  Union,  and  it 
gave  up  at  the  same  time  any  independent  choice  of  ac- 
tion. Henceforth  its  course  must  be  guided  by  the  will 
of  the  American  State.    The  sovereignty  once  surrendered 


SOVEREIGNTY  OF  THE  STATE  211 

is  as  though  it  had  not  been.  The  State  delegates  au- 
thority to  its  Government,  but  sovereignty  remains  with 
the  State.  From  the  facts  at  hand,  it  is  evident  how  far 
the  materialistic  conceptions  of  the  State  led  us  away 
both  in  political  theory  and  practice.  Had  it  been  un- 
derstood that  the  State  was  psychical  not  physical,  spir- 
itual not  material,  the  long  contest  over  the  division  of 
sovereignty  either  would  not  have  occurred,  or  would  have 
had  to  choose  some  other  conditions  of  warfare.  It  is  of 
no  small  account  in  the  progress  toward  political  har- 
mony that  we  are  coming  to  understand  better  the  sub- 
ject with  which  we  have  to  deal. 
The  Location  of  Sovereignty. 

Hegel  tells  us  in  his  "  Philosophy  of  History  "  that  in 
the  time  of  the  early  monarchies  one  was  free,  later  the 
few  were  free,  now  all  are  free.  Taken  with  some  al- 
lowances, this  expresses  the  truth  of  which  history  marks 
the  unfolding  in  the  process  of  the  centuries.  In  the 
early  empires  the  king  was  called  the  sovereign,  though 
we  accept  the  term  with  a  proviso.  Taking  Egypt  as 
a  concrete  case,  the  Pharaoh  ruled  in  autocratic  fashion, 
yet  there  were  bounds  to  his  authority,  beyond  which  the 
king  ventured  at  his  peril. 

The  King  Was  Limited  in  His  Sphere  of  Action. 

The  modern  Government  legislates  in  regard  to  the  re* 
lations  between  citizens  to  an  extent  not  possible  to  the 
ancient  king.  His  range  of  subjects  was  limited,  though 
in  his  particular  field  he  had  little  restraint.  The  ancient 
Government  was  scarcely  more  than  a  taxing  agency,  and 


212  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

if  the  subjects  paid  their  taxes  without  undue  complaint, 
besides  furnishing  levies  of  men  for  the  suppression  of 
rebellion  in  the  empire,  or  the  subjugation  of  surrounding 
peoples,  the  monarch  did  not  interfere  in  the  other 
spheres  of  life.  The  general  course  of  the  life  of  the 
people  was  regulated  by  influences  with  which  the  king 
did  not  presume  to  interfere. 

The  modern  Government  steps  in  between  citizens  to 
regulate  contracts,  to  decide  on  the  methods  of  inher- 
itance, to  make  conditions  for  legal  marriage  and  divorce, 
filling  the  modern  statute  book  with  rules  on  subjects 
with  which  the  Pharaoh  did  not  concern  himself.  It  is 
doubtless  true  that  the  growing  complexity  of  modern 
society,  of  which  Mr.  Herbert  Spencer  makes  so  much, 
calls  for  Government  interference  in  a  way  that  the  sim- 
'plicity  of  ancient  society  made  unnecessary.  Yet  even 
.then  they  had  to  buy  and  sell  as  now.  The  difference  lay 
not  so  much  in  the  different  conditions  in  society  as  in 
the  change  in  the  idea  of  the  functions  of  Government. 
The  king  wanted  money  for  his  court,  and  men  for  his 
wars  and  public  works.  Gaining  these  ends  he  was  con- 
tent to  allow  the  subject  to  follow  the  customs  of  his 
fathers  in  other  matters.  It  was  in  custom  that  ancient 
society  read  its  code  of  laws.  These  customs  had  been 
sanctified  by  immemorial  usage.  They  had  grown  up 
less  by  conscious  intent  than  by  unconscious  adaptation 
to  existing  conditions.  Yet  the  point  we  should  keep 
in  mind  is  that  they  were  the  expression  of  the  life  of 
the  people.  Thus  the  people  were  ruled  by  laws  of  their 
own  making,  rather  than  by  any  device  of  the  king.    The 


SOVEREIGNTY  OF  THE  STATE  213 

Pharaoh  might  drive  them  into  his  army,  or  by  thousands 
into  the  quarries,  but  to  have  interfered  in  family  rela- 
tions, or  to  have  changed  a  religious  rite,  might  have 
raised  a  storm  which  would  have  swept  him  from  his 
throne. 

The  King  Issued  Decrees  for  Special  Cases. 

We  think  of  a  law  which  is  enacted  by  the  legislature 
as  a  standing  rule  for  the  settlement  of  a  whole  class  of 
cases,  a  rule  which  by  the  interpretation  of  the  courts 
may  meet  the  needs  on  that  particular  subject  for  dec- 
ades. In  this  sense  the  ancient  king  did  not  issue  laws. 
He  sent  out  decrees  for  special  times  and  cases,  and 
these  edicts  ceased  to  have  force  when  the  special  occa- 
sion passed.  The  laws  of  the  Medes  and  Persians  could 
not  be  altered,  for  which  there  was  less  need  on  ac- 
count of  their  special  character.  Ahasuerus,  as  the  book 
of  Esther  records,  issued  his  decree  against  the  Jews  for 
a  certain  day,  and  the  order  could  be  amended  only  by  a 
new  decree.  The  only  rules  which  had  general  applica- 
tion at  such  times  were  found  in  the  customs  of  the 
people. 

When  Hegel  writes  that  one  only  was  free  in  the  early 
society  he  means  that  only  the  king  consciously  chose 
his  own  course.  It  is  doubtless  true  that  the  people  had 
scarcely  come  to  consciousness  of  having  any  end  beyond 
mere  existence.  We  could  hardly  speak  of  any  defined 
social  ideal  as  yet.  The  power  which  the  people  pos- 
sessed was  mainly  that  of  resistance  to  change.  There 
doubtless  were  those  who  had  insurrections  against  es- 


214  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

tablished  conditions  brooding  in  their  minds,  but  they 
could  not  infect  the  multitude  with  them.  Patriotism  was 
yet  far  in  the  future.  In  such  a  condition  of  things, 
where  was  sovereignty  located  ?  Was  it  in  the  monarch  ? 
Was  it  his  will  that  shaped  the  course  of  things,  or  did 
his  will  have  to  adapt  itself  to  the  established  order? 
The  latter  seems  the  necessary  conclusion.  He  might 
tax,  he  rriight  kill,  but  he  could  not  change  the  customs 
of  the  people.  The  absolute  king  seems  to  belong  to 
the  realm  of  fancy,  rather  than  of  fact ;  he  finds  his  place 
in  story,  rather  than  in  history. 

The  Few  are  Free. 

In  the  growth  of  common  consciousness,  the  monarchy 
gives  way  to  the  aristocracy.  Not  that  this  has  been  the 
universal  rule  among  the  peoples,  for,  taking  the  world 
as  a  whole,  development  seems  to  have  been  the  exception 
rather  than  the  rule.  In  many  cases  the  particular  so- 
ciety seemed  to  have  reached  the  limit  which  its  political 
genius  allowed,  without  passing  beyond  the  monarchical 
stage  of  development.  Wherever  societies  have  reached 
any  high  degree  of  development,  the  king  has  been  dis- 
placed in  reality  if  not  in  name. 

The  Tarquin  Kings  of  Rome  tried  to  hold  their  posi- 
tion by  granting  certain  privileges  to  the  Plebeians,  but 
the  Plebeians  had  not  enough  political  organization  to 
sustain  the  Tarquins  in  this  purpose.  For  this  reason 
the  kings  were  driven  from  Rome  by  the  Patrician  aris- 
tocracy. The  early  Roman  Republic  was  an  aristocracy, 
with  the  political   administration  carefully  guarded   in 


SOVEREIGNTY  OF  THE  STATE  21$ 

Patrician  hands,  and  the  struggle  for  three  hundred 
years  was  between  this  aristocracy  and  the  rising  spirit 
of  democracy. 

In  England  this  order  of  development  seems  to  be  re- 
versed, since  the  power  of  the  king  rose  to  its  greatest 
height  out  of  the  ruins  of  the  feudal  aristocracy;  yet 
the  power  of  the  Tudors  lay  mainly  in  the  fact  that  they 
favored  the  commons  to  such  an  extent  that  they  were 
among  the  most  popular  of  English  kings.  The  last  of 
the  Tudor  line,  "the  good  Queen  Bess,"  was,  undeserv- 
edly enough,  the  most  popular  of  all,  since  she  knew  so 
well  when  to  yield  to  the  wishes  of  the  people.  The 
power  of  the  Tudors  lay,  as  does  the  modern  Govern- 
ment, in  the  approval  of  the  people. 

The  aristocracy  of  birth  has  had  its  time  to  reign,  and 
has  passed  away.  The  aristocracy  which  now  bars  the 
road  toward  democracy  is  the  aristocracy  of  wealth.  Mr. 
Herbert  Spencer  looked  forward  to  the  time  when  the 
control  of  society  would  lie  in  the  industries  of  the  time, 
instead  of  in  the  legislative  halls,  and  he  has  proven  to 
be  more  of  a  prophet  than  many  of  his  critics,  since  pres- 
ent conditions  go  far  toward  the  realization  of  his  ideal. 
The  Government  of  the  United  States  must  have  its  con- 
ference with  Wall  Street,  and  the  English  Government 
with  Lombard  Street,  before  deciding  on  important  mat- 
ters. The  press,  which  is  to  educate  the  people  on  the 
great  questions  of  the  day,  depends  upon  its  advertising 
pages  rather  than  upon  its  editorials  for  its  livelihood, 
and  the  former  control  the  latter.  It  is  the  advertising 
agent  who  mainly  dictates  the  make-up  of  the  paper. 


2i6  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

The  same  is  true  in  a  less  degree  of  the  pulpit  and  the 
school.  In  the  anxiety  for  endowments,  the  schools  must 
cater  to  the  sentiments  of  those  who  have  grasped  the 
world's  wealth.  The  aristocracy  of  religion,  and  later 
of  birth,  held  dominion  over  the  minds  of  men,  while 
that  of  wealth  holds  their  bodies  in  fee;  but  the  plutoc- 
racy must  pass  away,  as  did  its  more  honorable  pre- 
cursor. The  feet  of  those  who  carried  out  its  predeces- 
sors are  at  the  door,  and  not  all  the  subserviency  of  press, 
pulpit  and  school  can  keep  democracy  from  its  own. 

Sovereignty,  so  far  as  it  is  realized  on  earth,  rests 
in  the  will  of  an  aroused  people.  At  one  time  the  king 
assumed  to  have  it,  and  for  the  time  his  claim  seemed 
valid ;  the  aristocracy  seated  itself  upon  the  throne  which 
the  king  vacated,  and  grasped  with  firm  hand  the  reins 
of  power;  they  too  have  passed,  and  will  pass,  away. 
Where  superior  mind  failed  to  keep  in  the  saddle,  con- 
centrated wealth  need  not  hope  to  hold  its  seat.  In  our 
own  time  we  read  how  the  kings  and  the  nobility  of 
Europe  bow  in  awe  before  a  group  of  American  million- 
aires. It  is  the  new  aristocracy  which  is  graving  its  laws 
deeply  on  the  political  methods  of  our  day. 

There  is  but  one  influence  that  can  stay  the  coming 
of  democracy.  When  the  moral  decay  which  followed 
the  Punic  Wars  had  sapped  the  vitality  of  Roman  life, 
the  citizens  lost  that  moral  fiber  which  is  essential  to 
the  people  possessing  self-government.  The  people  had 
their  consciences  blunted  by  the  plunder  of  the  provinces 
which  fed  them,  by  the  feasts  and  shows  which  made 
them  careless  of  the  suffering  of  the  provincials,  at  whose 


SOVEREIGNTY  OF  THE  STATE  217 

cost  these  had  been  gained.  To  quote  from  Mr.  Kipling, 
Rome  was  bearing  the  "  White  Man's  Burden  "  of  sub- 
ject populations.  Under  such  conditions  the  Roman  citi- 
zenship degenerated  so  that  it  became  the  prey  of  the 
demagogue  and  the  barbarian.  Brutus  sincerely  believed 
that  with  the  death  of  Caesar  the  Republic  might  be  re- 
stored, but  it  was  too  late.  Only  a  moral  citizenship 
deserves  self-government;  only  such  can  retain  it. 

It  is  at  such  a  time  of  moral  degeneracy  that  the  Caesar 
comes.  Since  sovereignty  is  in  the  will,  it  follows  that 
when  a  State  becomes  so  corrupt  as  to  lose  its  will  power, 
as  does  the  individual  under  like  circumstances,  some 
rival  people  comes  to  build  upon  the  ruins  of  a  fallen 
race.  In  this  way  can  sovereignty  pass  from  a  people, 
but  it  is  to  another  people  more  worthy  of  it. 

All  Are  Free. 

.  This  was  the  final  stage  in  Hegel's  plan  of  human  de- 
velopment. We  have  seen  that  in  the  previous  stages 
the  monarch,  or  the  aristocracy,  had  claimed  to  be  sov- 
ereign, but  back  of  these  administrators  there  was  the 
people  with  the  possibilities  of  rebellion.  It  is  true 
that  these  uprisings  were  infrequent,  yet  their  possibility 
acted  as  the  fear  of  a  strike  upon  an  employer  who  has 
many  orders  on  hand  which  he  wants  to  fill.  The  possi- 
bility of  revolution  was  the  sword  of  Damocles  which 
hung  over  the  king  and  the  nobility  to  remind  them  of 
how  carefully  they  must  do  their  work  lest  the  blade 
should  fall. 
In  the  modern  State  it  Has  become  something  short 


218  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

of  a  vice  that  the  Government  is  afraid  of  the  crowd,  so 
that  in  listening  for  the  popular  verdict  the  Government 
has  little  of  the  leadership  which  it  should  exercise.  It 
is  the  aim  of  the  statesman  of  the  present  to  follow, 
rather  than  to  lead,  public  opinion,  satisfied  if  results 
show  that  he  has  charted  correctly  where  the  tide  is 
running,  so  that  he  may  keep  his  political  craft  where 
the  water  is  deepest. 

Is  Sovereignty  in  the  English  Parliament ? 

While  the  reasoning  here  followed  denies  sovereignty 
to  the  Parliament,  many  writers  on  law  hold  that  as  there 
is  no  constitutional  restriction  upon  what  Parliament  may 
do,  therefore  sovereignty  resides  in  the  king  in  Parlia- 
ment. This  seems  to  be  mistaking  appearance  for  fact, 
since  Parliament  follows  public  opinion  with  scarcely  less 
subservience  than  does  Congress.  Parliament  has  some- 
thing the  character  of  a  constitutional  convention,  as  it 
is  within  its  legal  competence  to  work  an  entire  change 
in  the  British  Constitution  of  Government,  but  the  mem- 
bers have  a  clear  understanding  that  they  must  go  back 
to  their  constituents  to  give  an  account  of  their  steward- 
ship. Parliament  is  the  last  legal  court  of  review,  but 
the  people  have  it  in  their  power  to  change  this  court 
and  its  decisions  at  any  time. 

It  is  not  necessary,  as  in  the  United  States,  to  submit 
constitutional  changes  to  the  popular  approval,  but  the 
difference  is  rather  in  method  than  in  principle.  The 
legislators  must  submit  themselves  to  popular  approval. 
So  long  as  Parliament  is  in  session  there  are  no  legal 


SOVEREIGNTY  OF  THE  STATE  219 

limitations  upon  its  functions,  but  the  dissolution  brings 
the  whole  issue  before  the  electors,  much  as  if  they  were 
voting  upon  the  measure  directly.  If  the  people  wish 
to  reverse  the  decision  of  Parliament,  they  can  choose 
other  members  in  that  body. 

England's  Three  Revolutions. 

Professor  Burgess  states  that  England  has  had  three 
revolutions.  The  first  one  took  place  in  the  reign  of 
King  John,  when  the  barons  in  alliance  with  the  leaders 
of  the  commons  forced  in  Magna  Carta  the  limitation  of 
the  royal  power.  It  is  true  that  King  John  kept  the 
semblance  of  legal  form  by  giving  the  Great  Charter 
by  his  royal  will,  but  it  was  a  consent  which  he  dared 
not  withhold.  "  They  have  given  me  four-and-twenty 
over-kings,"  he  said  as  he  rolled  upon  the  floor  in  his 
chagrin,  and,  except  at  intervals,  the  "  over-kings  "  re- 
mained. Many  times  in  the  following  centuries  the 
Charter  had  to  be  re-affirmed  as  the  kings  tried  to  break 
through  the  limits  which  had  been  set  to  the  royal  pre- 
rogative. They  had  walked  a  road  which  could  not  be 
retraced. 

The  second  notable  change  took  place  when  the  first 
Tudor  set  the  crown  upon  his  head  in  1485  on  Bos  worth 
Field.  During  twenty  years  the  Wars  of  the  Roses,  with 
their  accompaniment  of  executions  and  confiscations,  had 
worked  such  havoc  among  the  feudal  nobility  that  it  was 
not  after  that  time  an  efficient  check  upon  the  king. 
Thus  the  revolution  of  1485  eliminated  the  nobility  and 
left  the  king  face  to  face  with  the  people,  whom  he  hence- 


220  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

forth  was  to  serve,  though  not  always  with  a  good  grace. 

But  as  yet  there  was  no  institution  through  which  the 
will  of  the  English  people  could  direct  the  Government. 
The  Commons  was  yet  a  kind  of  assistant  of  the  Lords. 
The  Courts  of  Star  Chamber  and  High  Commission, 
though  they  later  earned  the  hatred  of  the  people,  were 
designed  to  coerce  the  weakened  nobility.  It  was  when 
the  king  turned  these  courts  upon  the  people  that  the 
reaction  came  which  overthrew  both  king  and  courts 
in  the  Puritan  uprising.  During  the  years  from  1485  till 
1832  the  king  was  allowed  to  keep  the  semblance  of 
power,  provided  that  he  was  sufficiently  modest  in  its 
exercise. 

The  third  revolution  was  in  1832,  when  the  people  took 
over  the  exercise  of  the  powers  of  the  State.  Up  to  that 
time  the  members  of  the  Commons  had  been  elected 
from  the  same  districts  as  centuries  before,  though  the 
population  had  moved  meanwhile.  The  result  was  that 
large  cities  such  as  Liverpool  and  Manchester  had  no  rep- 
resentative in  Parliament,  while  villages,  so  ruined  as 
not  to  have  a  house  to  mark  the  place  where  they  had 
stood,  sent  representatives  to  Parliament.  By  this  means 
these  pocket  boroughs,  as  they  were  called,  the  members 
for  which  were  appointed  by  some  Lord,  controlled  the 
actions  of  the  House  of  Commons.  The  Reform  Bill 
of  1832  abolished  these  boroughs,  distributing  the  repre- 
sentation according  to  population,  making  Parliament  the 
exponent  of  the  social  will.  Again  it  may  be  said  that 
the  action  of  1832  was  not  revolutionary,  since  it  was 
legalized  by  the  crown;  but  when  it  is  remembered  that 


SOVEREIGNTY  OF  THE  STATE  221 

the  ministers  ordered  out  the  Horse  Guards,  compelled 
the  king  to  dissolve  Parliament  and  to  consent  to  the 
creation  of  new  Lords  if  the  existing  House  did  not  con- 
sent to  the  Reform  Bill,  it  is  apparent  that  the  royal 
prerogative  had  gone  into  eclipse.  The  last  court  of 
appeal  is  neither  king  nor  commons  —  it  is  the  people. 

Conditions  of  Freedom. 

So  far  the  argument  has  led  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
people  have  been,  and  are,  the  sovereign  power,  though 
it  may  be  recalled  that  the  State  is  not  unlimited  in  its 
actions.  Sovereignty  in  full  realization  belongs  only  to 
that  will  which  is  unlimited  in  its  choice,  and  as  well 
in  its  use  of  means  for  executing  its  will.  The  State, 
then,  is  not  finally  sovereign.  Only  in  God  is  found  the 
will  which  meets  the  conditions.  In  this  conception  of 
sovereignty  is  also  found  the  essentials  of  individual 
freedom. 

If  it  is  concluded  that  the  people  is  the  ultimate  sov- 
ereign, this  power  must  find  expression  through  the  ma- 
jority. If  that  is  all  that  we  have  reached  through  the 
centuries  of  progress,  it  means  that  we  have  changed 
from  the  king,  who  had  the  semblance  of  sovereignty,  to 
the  people,  which  has  much  more  of  the  reality,  and 
that  any  sufficient  guarantee  of  individual  freedom  is 
lacking.  With  the  monarch  it  is  possible  to  reason, 
scarcely  with  a  million  men.  Against  the  king  it  was 
possible  to  appeal  to  the  multitude,  but  to  whom  against 
the  multitude?  There  will  always  be  minorities  in  a  de- 
mocracy, however  common  the  ideas  of  the  time ;  indeed, 


«22  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

it  is  to  this  social  variation  that  we  must  look  for  pro- 
gress. 

Mr.  Lawrence  Lowell  in  his  "  Essays  on  Democracy  " 
points  out  the  same  danger  when  he  says :  "  It  is  clear 
that  where  absolute  power  is  vested  in  any  man  or  body 
of  men,  the  rights  of  the  individual  depend  on  the  will 
of  that  man  or  body;  and  this  is  no  more  true  in  the 
case  of  a  king  than  in  that  of  a  legislative  assembly 
or  a  sovereign  people."  We  have  seen  how  the  king 
gave  place  to  the  aristocracy,  and  how  this  body,  in  its 
turn,  had  to  acknowledge  the  power  of  the  democracy. 
It  is  now  left  for  the  democracy  to  confess  the  authority 
of  God  in  the  matter  of  social  control  and  the  goal  of 
history  will  be  reached.  In  any  will  short  of  the  will 
of  God,  sovereignty  is  relative;  in  Him  it  is  absolute. 
It  is  in  this  that  we  have  our  only  guarantee  for  in- 
dividual freedom. 

With  God  as  the  sovereign,  we  have  an  arbiter  who 
is  free  from  the  intolerance  of  the  majority  and  the  pas- 
sion of  partisanship.  Nowhere  short  of  God  is  there  a 
judge  who  has  a  care  for  the  weak,  which  puts  them  on 
equal  footing  with  the  strong.  It  might  be  objected  at 
this  point  that  while  God  is  sovereign,  yet  He  must  act 
through  human  means;  that  this  human  means  must 
be  the  dominant  social  force,  which  is  expressed  through 
the  majority.  This  might  seem  to  lead  back  to  the  same 
result  as  before,  the  tyranny  of  the  majority.  But  this 
does  not  state  the  whole  case.  The  State  must  be  ruled 
through  the  social  element  which  is  dominant  at  the 
time,  but  this  majority  should  understand  that  it  is  not 


SOVEREIGNTY  OF  THE  STATE  223 

the  final  judge  in  the  case.  It  should  remember  that  it 
is  under  law,  to  which  it  must  give  account,  and  that  the 
question  between  the  majority  and  the  minority  goes  on 
appeal  to  the  judgment  of  God.  The  case  may  be  al- 
lowed to  stay  on  the  divine  docket  for  decades  or  cen- 
turies before  judgment  is  pronounced  and  execution  or- 
dered, but  when  the  bill  is  rendered  it  will  be  with  costs. 

Injustice  will  inevitably  meet  its  recompense  of  reward. 
When  the  State  recognizes  its  will  as  subject  to  the  will 
of  God,  then,  and  not  till  then,  will  the  individual  have 
a  guarantee  of  freedom  sufficient  to  protect  him  from 
arbitrary  power. 

It  is  frankly  admitted  that  the  social  intelligence  must 
finally  put  its  interpretation  upon  the  divine  law  in  its 
application  to  the  matter  in  hand,  and  it  is  always  pos- 
sible that  this  interpretation  might  not  be  the  one  which 
justice  would  demand;  yet  it  is  not  to  be  forgotten  that 
the  people  taking  the  law  of  God  as  the  rule  of  life  has 
not  worked  social  injustice  to  the  citizen.  Social  free- 
dom would  not  meet  immediate  fruition  even  on  this 
basis,  but  in  no  other  way  will  it  be  gained  at  all.  It  is 
when  the  State  consciously  accepts  the  will  of  God  as 
supreme  over  the  social  will  and  carries  out  the  social 
functions  in  the  spirit  of  the  teachings  of  Jesus  Christ, 
that  the  will  of  God  is  done  on  earth  as  it  is  done  in 
heaven. 


The  Nature  of  the  State,  Willoughby,  pp.  181-309 ;  Essays  on 
Government,  Lowell,  pp.  189-223;  Political  Science,  Burgess, 
part  2;  Works  of  T.  H.  Green,  vol.  2,  pp.  427-549;  American 
Republic,  Brownson. 


LAW 

The  philosopher  who  teaches  the  eighteenth  century 
idea  that  we  know  only  unrelated  phenomena  is  lonely 
in  these  days  as  the  owl  upon  the  housetops,  since  ma- 
terialist and  idealist  maintain  that  there  is  a  universe 
constituted  by  universal  law.  It  is  evidence  that  ideas 
have  not  been  simply  marking  time  during  the  last  hun- 
dred years,  when  the  philosopher,  the  scientist,  and  the 
theologian  have  this  much  in  common,  however  much 
they  may  differ  in  regard  to  the  nature  of  this  universal 
law.  When  the  question  of  the  nature  of  the  law  is 
broached,  these  quondam  friends  fall  apart  and  each  goes 
his  several  way.  One  of  the  questions  which  bring  out 
this  difference  of  view  is  that  of  the  origin  of  law. 
Is  Law  Personal  or  Impersonal  in  Origin? 

"  Of  law,"  writes  Hooker,  "  there  can  be  no  less  ac- 
knowledgedt  than  that  her  seat  is  the  bosom  of  God ;  her 
voice  the  harmony  of  the  world."  This  sentiment  states 
one  view  of  the  case,  in  declaring  that  law  is  an  expres- 
sion of  will.  It  teaches  that  in  the  administration  of  the 
universe  of  men  and  matter  there  is  a  sovereign  will  at 
work  which  originates  and  directs  both  psychical  and 
physical  movements.  These  movements  are  not  along 
blind  alleys  which  are  liable  at  any  point  to  be  marked 
"  No  thoroughfare."  Each  one  is  telic  in  character,  hav- 
ing an  end  to  serve  in  the  universal  plan. 

224 


LAW  225 

So  far  as  the  Middle  Ages  produced  anything  deserv- 
ing the  name  of  history,  it  was  written  from  the  stand- 
point of  the  ecclesiastic,  and  was  scarcely  more  than  a 
brief  record  of  the  doings  of  the  churchmen.  Somewhat 
later  the  historian  gained  a  new  vantage  and  gave  us 
a  record  of  the  rise  and  fall  of  kings  and  courts.  In 
recent  times  we  are  told  that  the  economic  factor  is  the 
most  important  in  the  matter  of  social  growth. 

What  the  student  comes  to  understand  is  that  each 
of  these  —  the  ecclesiastical,  the  political,  or  the  eco- 
nomic —  is  but  a  different  factor  in  the  social  movement, 
each  co-operating  with  the  others  in  an  organic  relation- 
ship in  working  out  the  plan  of  God  in  the  uplifting  of 
society.  In  this  wonderful  social  plan  each  man  and  each 
institution  has  a  work  that  is  to  minister  to  the  final  end. 

It  follows  from  this  evidence  of  the  complexity  of  the 
plan  that  the  will  which  designed  and  moves  it  all  is 
supreme  intelligence.  The  universe  starts  from  God  and 
moves  to  God.  That  is  its  origin  and  its  end.  At  no 
point  between  origin  and  end  is  either  the  molecule  of 
matter  or  the  individual  man  free  from  the  control  of 
the  sovereign  will.  This  will  must  belong  to  a  person, 
since  things  do  not  have  will.  It  is  the  personal  will 
of  a  personal  God. 

Those  who  claim  in  this  age  that  law  is  impersonal 
teach  that  natural  law  controls  the  world  in  which  we 
live  and  that  natural  law  is  physical.  The  laws  of  attrac- 
tion and  repulsion  govern  matter;  so  they  tell  us  that 
they  govern  man.  In  this  materialistic  view  of  things 
there  is  no  spirit,  except  as  it  evolves  from  matter,  so 


226  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

there  can  be  no  spiritual  laws.  Our  common  idea  that 
nature  is  dead,  passive  matter,  we  have  borrowed  from 
the  physicist,  and  yet,  though  we  took  part  of  his  prem- 
ises, we  blame  him  because  he  wants  us  to  go  the  rest 
of  the  way  with  him  in  admitting  that  this  nature  rules. 
Our  mistake  has  lain  in  taking  his  premise  as  our  start- 
ing point.  Nature  does  rule,  but  is  the  clod  under  my 
foot  nature?  The  clod  did  not  make  itself,  it  does  not 
rule  itself.  There  is  something  beyond  the  clod,  and 
thatjs  mind,  that  willed  the  clod.  To  find  nature  we 
must**  go  beyond  what  our  feet  tread  upon,  to  what  our 
thoughts,  reach  after,  and  find  mind.  Matter  is  neither 
a  beginning  nor  an  end.  It  is  but  the  means  through 
which  spirit  finds  expression.  Nature  is  sentient,  it  is 
God,  and  all  the  laws  which  we  see  working  in  matter  — 
the  falling  stone,  or  the  running  stream  —  are  but  one 
phase  of  nature's  laws.  All  law  emanates  from  the  spir- 
itual nature  and  acts  for  it. 

As  a  side  issue  on  this  point  we  have  the  question  of 
miracles.  It  is  said  by  the  materialist  that  miracles  are 
a  violation  of  the  laws  of  nature,  and  therefore  that  they 
are  impossible.  But  if  we  deny  his  premise  that  physical 
law  is  the  only  natural  law ;  if  we  hold  that  nature  is  the 
divine  mind,  it  changes  the  whole  situation.  Then  from 
the  standpoint  of  the  divine  mind,  the  departure  from 
the  observed  course  of  things  is  not  only  possible,  but, 
taken  in  connection  with  the  life  of  Jesus  Christ,  is 
certain. 

The  laws  which  God  gave  to  Moses  at  Sinai  were  nat- 
ural laws,  were  the  revelation  of  man's  nature  to  him- 


LAW  227 

self.  The  moral  law  was  his  constitution,  just  as  the 
physical  laws  reveal  the  constitution  of  the  rock  and  the 
soil.  But  neither  man  nor  the  rock  gave  law  to  them- 
selves. That  was  given  by  the  maker  of  both,  that  nature 
of  which  they  were  the  expression  and  whose  will  they 
were  to  perform.  In  the  final  analysis  nature  is  God. 
It  is  not  passive,  but  active;  it  is  not  dead  matter,  but 
living  mind.  The  miracles,  of  which  Jesus  is  chief, 
obeyed  the  law  of  mind. 

The  Impersonal  Origin  of  Law. 

If  this  were  written  for  the  people  of  the  East,  it  would 
be  in  place  to  take  up  the  question  of  Pantheism,  which 
teaches  that  God  is  in  everything  and  that  everything  is 
God;  but  when  one  is  writing  for  Anglo-Saxon  readers 
the  Pantheistic  idea  of  law  needs  no  more  than  a  passing 
notice.  The  Pantheist  would  hold  with  the  preceding 
view  that  all  law  came  from  God,  but  it  would  not  be  an 
expression  of  will.  Pantheism  has  no  place  for  a  per- 
sonal God,  and  an  impersonal  God,  one  that  has  no  ex- 
istence except  in  what  the  eye  can  see,  can  have  no  will. 

But  for  the  American,  or  the  Englishman,  having 
before  his  eyes  the  mechanical  inventions  which  have 
made  the  powers  of  earth  and  air  his  servants,  living 
in  the  midst  of  a  production  of  material  wealth  such  as 
the  world  has  not  known  at  any  previous  time,  material- 
ism is  the  dominant  idea.  Paradoxical  as  it  may  seem, 
as  the  mind  of  man  is  able  to  conquer  matter  and  make 
it  work  for  him  in  the  field  of  action,  matter  is  inclined 
to  dominate  man  in  the  field  of  thought.  "  Things  are 
in  the  saddle,"  so  that  man  is  in  danger  of  owning  as 
his  master  what  was  meant  to  be  his  slave.     From  the 


228  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

standpoint  of  the  materialist,  law  is  that  uniformity  of 
action  which  may  be  discovered  in  the  laboratory,  or  by 
daily  observation.  It  is  simply  physical  law,  and  if  there 
is  a  God  at  all  He  does  not  interfere  in  the  operation  of 
this  law.  There  is  no  will  in  control.  Mr.  Herbert  Spen- 
cer, who  has  earned  the  right  to  be  taken  as  an  ex- 
ponent of  materialism,  teaches  that  law  is  only  persistent 
force  working  through  the  material  world  and  through 
society.  All  things  come  from  matter  and  motion,  says 
the  great  Agnostic,  so  that  thought  itself  is  but  a  physical 
product  of  some  reaction  in  the  brain.  There  is  no  will 
in  control,  no  mediator  to  stand  between  man  and  the 
inevitable  laws  of  persistent  force,  so  that  the  mills  of 
the  materialistic  gods,  while  grinding  slowly,  will  "  grind 
exceeding  small."  This  universal  law  may  possibly  be 
adjusted  to  some  remote  end,  but  it  is  to  work  as  re- 
morselessly as  the  law  of  falling  bodies.  Such  is  the 
origin  of  law  as  the  materialist  sees  it. 

The  man  who  takes  the  Bible  as  the  rule  of  his  life 
is  not  left  in  doubt  as  to  which  of  these  views  of  the 
origin  of  law  he  will  accept.  If  the  materialist  has  any 
place  for  God  at  all  it  is  as  the  Creator  of  a  universe 
which  He  at  once  abandoned.  He  has  no  place  for  con- 
science in  regard  to  the  application  of  the  law.  The 
whole  duty  of  the  individual  is  done  when  he  submits  to 
"  persistent  force,"  which  in  social  affairs  would  be  the 
rule  of  the  environment.  One  does  not  need  a  conscience 
under  such  conditions. 
The  Definition  of  Law. 

Any  adequate  definition  of  law  should  apply  equally 


LAW  229 

Well  in  the  material  and  in  the  spiritual  realms,  for  when 
we  reject  the  idea  of  the  materialist  who,  in  his  limited 
view,  denies  spirit,  it  is  not  necessary  to  take  the  position 
of  his  equally  one-sided  friend  who  maintains  that  mat- 
ter has  no  existence.  One  needs  to  look  at  facts  with 
both  eyes  open. 

Law  might  be  defined  as  "  the  will  of  God,"  but  it 
carries  with  it  the  possible  implication  that  law  is  some- 
thing imposed  on  the  world  from  the  outside,  instead 
of  being,  as  it  is,  its  constitution.  The  universe  was  not 
made  first  and  then  a  law  made  for  it,  but  the  law  was 
made  in  it.  Montesquieu  has  given  us  a  definition  which 
seems  to  be  sufficiently  near  to  the  facts :  "  Law  is  the 
necessary  relations  which  pertain  to  the  nature  of  things." 
When  the  student  is  trying  to  discover  physical  laws  in 
the  laboratory,  he  does  it  by  bringing  different  substances 
together  to  see  what  they  will  do.  He  finds  that  by  mix- 
ing oxygen  and  hydrogen  together  in  certain  proportions 
he  produces  water.  Two  substances,  each  in  itself  harm- 
less, when  combined  become  a  dangerous  explosive.  By 
experiments  the  student  learns  the  actions  of  the  acids 
and  salts  with  which  he  has  to  deal,  and  these  relations 
constitute  their  laws.  In  each  case  the  law,  or  relation, 
is  determined  by  the  nature  of  the  substance.  To  work 
any  change  in  law  it  would  be  necessary  to  change  the 
nature  of  the  substance  in  question,  since  the  law  is  some- 
thing in  it,  and  not  an  external  power  imposed  on  it. 

When  we  turn  from  the  matter  of  the  laboratory  to 
man,  the  definition  still  meets  the  conditions.  The  re- 
lations between  man  and  man,  taken  with  the  relations 


230  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

between  man  and  God,  make  up  the  sum  of  psychic  law, 
with  which  we  have  to  deal.  When  Jesus  said,  "  Thou 
shalt  love  the  Lord  with  all  thy  heart,  and  thy  neighbor 
as  thyself,"  He  was  stating  the  relationship  which  per- 
tained to  the  nature  of  God  and  man.  As  man  comes 
to  understand  God  better  and  his  neighbor  better,  he  is 
learning  the  constitution  of  both  parties,  so  that  he  is 
able  to  live  according  to  law.  When  a  man  does  wrong 
he  is  violating  his  own  constitution.  A  social  wrong  is 
a  violation  of  the  social  constitution. 

The  Knowledge  of  Law. 

As  we  have  noticed  two  ideas  in  regard  to  the  origin 
of  law,  there  are  also  two  views  as  to  how  we  come  to 
the  knowledge  of  law.  Those  who  believe  that  law  is 
the  expression  of  the  will  of  a  personal  God,  believe  also 
that  our  knowledge  of  law  is  gained  partially  through 
revelation ;  while  their  opponents  who  allow  only  a  physi- 
cal character  to  law,  claim  that  it  is  learned  onlv  through 
observation. 

Knowledge  Through  Experience. 

It  must  be  admitted  at  once  that  a  large  proportion  of 
the  knowledge  of  our  relations  to  men  and  things  has 
come  through  experience;  perhaps  much  the  larger  part 
has  been  gained  in  this  way.  But  we  can  not  allow  ex- 
perience the  whole  field  to  itself.  One  difficulty  with 
making  experience  the  sole  discoverer  of  law  is  that  it 
can  deal  only  with  the  past,  and  only  inadequately  with 
that  field ;  while  it  can  give  only  suggestion  for  the  fu- 


LAW  231 

ture.  It  can  give  us  a  fair  idea  of  where  we  have  been, 
but  can  only  infer  the  point  toward  which  we  ought  to 
aim.  In  other  words,  it  fails  to  present  the  ideal  law 
which  we  ought  to  realize.  The  oarsman  who  sits  with 
his  face  to  the  stern  of  his  boat  may,  by  watching  the 
points  on  the  shore  which  he  is  leaving,  reach  the  desired 
landing  on  the  other  shore,  if  the  shore  is  in  sight.  But 
if  a  long  distance  intervenes,  the  points  on  the  shore 
cease  to  be  a  guide  and  he  has  recourse  to  his  compass. 

If  history  only  repeated  itself,  if  the  future  were  only 
the  repetition  of  the  past,  experience  might  file  its  claim 
as  the  agency  through  which  law  is  made  known;  but 
experience  fails  to  furnish  the  ideal  toward  which  we 
ought  to  aim.  Neither  present,  nor  future,  repeats  the 
past. 

Nor  does  it  appear  that  experience  may  rightfully  lay 
claim  to  a  monopoly  of  the  past.  Man  might  in  time 
have  discovered  the  moral  law,  by  means  of  a  long  and 
painful  experience,  but  that  was  not  the  way  in  which 
it  was  learned.  The  child  would  learn  by  experience 
that  the  fire  will  burn  its  fingers,  but  the  mother  makes 
a  revelation  of  the  fact,  with  some  saving  in  time  and 
tears.  Experience  is  a  slow  and  expensive  method  of 
gaining  knowledge,  though  its  lessons  are  remembered. 
But  much  of  our  knowledge  has  not  been  gained,  and 
could  not  be  gained,  by  it.  It  fails  to  give  the  complete 
outlook  on  human  and  divine  relationships. 

Knowledge  Through  Revelation. 
This  is  the  factor  which  gives  us  what  experience  fails 


232  SOCIAL  ETHICS     * 

to  furnish,  and  contributes  the  unearned  increment  in 
knowledge.  By  experience  we  gain  information  about 
material  things,  for  our  senses  are  continually  active  in 
this  work ;  but  experience  utterly  fails  to  furnish  intimate 
knowledge  of  God.  When  Peter  made  his  confession, 
"  Thou  art  the  Christ,"  Jesus  said  to  him,  "  Flesh  and 
blood  hath  not  revealed  it  to  thee,  but  my  Father  which 
is  in  heaven."  In  other  words,  there  was  a  relationship 
discovered  which  came  not  by  observation.  This  became 
a  part  of  Peter's  experience,  but  it  came  through  revela- 
tion. It  was  the  promise  of  Jesus  when  he  went  away 
that  when  the  Spirit  was  come  He  would  lead  men  into 
all  truth.  This  truth  was  to  be  gained  in  no  other  way. 
After  it  had  been  once  gained,  experience  might  aid 
greatly  in  its  development,  but  while  experience  may  re- 
combine  what  has  been  gained,  it  can  furnish  little  that 
is  new.  The  error  of  those  who  claim  that  all  our 
knowledge  of  law  is  derived  from  experience  is  nearly 
akin  to  the  error  of  thinking  that  all  law  has  a  physical 
origin.  Each  of  these  views  is  a  partial  truth.  Having 
given  to  experience  all  the  place  that  it  can  reasonably 
claim,  revelation  must  be  brought  in  to  account  for  our 
spiritual  knowledge.  Thus  experience  and  revelation 
complement  one  another,  each  having  its  function  to  per- 
form in  making  us  conscious  of  our  relations  to  all  that 
is  outside  the  self.  Thus  far  we  have  been  considering 
the  origin  of  law  in  the  constitution  of  matter  and  spirit, 
and  also  the  way  in  which  we  attain  to  the  knowledge 
of  the  law.  It  is  now  in  order  to  outline  the  method  by 
which  the  knowledge  of  the  law  is  put  into  objective 


LAW  233 

form  in  institutions  and  statutes,  so  that  it  may  work 
out  the  function  of  law  in  social  control  and  development. 

Early  Forms  of  Law. 

When  we  turn  to  the  study  of  the  early  forms  of  law, 
two  opposing  views  appear,  each  claiming  the  whole  field 
to  the  exclusion  of  the  other.  One  of  these  schools  of 
law  holds  that  law  is  first  manifested  in  the  form  of  cus- 
tom, while  the  other  as  stoutly  insists  that  legislation 
furnishes  the  first  form  of  law.  It  will  probably  be 
found,  after  due  consideration,  that  each  view  has  part 
of  the  truth  and  that  both  will  be  needed  to  explain 
the  facts  in  the  case.  In  general  it  may  be  said  that  the 
German  writers  presented  the  early  form  of  law  as  cus- 
tom, while  the  opposing  idea  found  support  among  the 
English  lawyers. 

Among  the  German  writers  on  this  subject  Savigny 
has  fairly  earned  the  first  place.  He  did  his  work  at  the 
time  when  the  aggressions  of  Napoleon  on  the  German 
people  had  awakened  Prussian  patriotism  to  the  point  of 
making  a  determined  struggle  for  a  national  existence. 
The  King  of  Prussia  had  been  so  influenced  by  Napoleon 
that  the  rise  of  nationality  took  place  without  his  leader- 
ship, or  even  his  favor.  It  was  a  movement  of  the  people 
which  opposed,  or  ignored,  the  king,  and  in  such  a  time 
it  was  natural  that  a  writer  who  was  in  sympathy  with 
the  new  spirit,  which  finally  forced  the  War  of  Libera- 
tion, should  look  to  the  people  rather  than  to  the  king 
as  the  maker  of  law.  Whether  it  was  the  historical  situa- 
tion or  the  result  of  his  investigations,  Savigny  held  that 


234  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

customs  were  developed  as  naturally  as  language.  Both 
came  out  of  the  people. 

Some  explanation  has  been  given  in  a  previous  chapter 
as  to  the  way  in  which  custom  comes  into  existence. 
The   customs   would   not,   at   first,  be   common  to   all. 

Individuals  would  adopt  a  certain  practice,  and  if  it 
proved  fit  for  the  existing  conditions,  the  practice  would 
be  copied  by  others  until  it  became  uniform.  As  soon 
as  custom  arrived  at  this  stage,  it  would  act  as  a  restraint 
upon  unruly  members  in  their  violation  of  the  common 
practice.  It  is  evident  that  these  customs  do  not  arise 
from  the  arbitrary  decisions  of  any  individual  or  group, 
nor  do  they  hold  sway  simply  through  the  popular  assent. 
Rather  do  they  have  a  positive  sanction  in  the  will  of 
the  community,  since  they  are  the  expression  of  the  HTe 
of  the  community.  Reason  is  not  a  prominent  factor 
in  the  formation  of  social  customs ;  they  are  not  reasoned 
out.  But  while  this  is  the  case,  the  development  of 
custom  has,  more  or  less,  the  character  of  a  conscious 
social  purpose.  It  is  what  the  people  wanted,  else  it 
had  not  taken  the  form  of  custom. 

For  instance,  when  the  three-field  system  of  farming 
was  introduced,  by  which  they  arranged  that  a  field  should 
be  used  as  meadow,  grain,  and  pasture  land  in  successive 
years,  it  was  probably  through  the  suggestion  of  some 
shrewd  cultivator  who  saw  that  the  continual  cropping 
of  the  soil  would  unfit  it  for  use ;  but  the  act  would  be- 
come customary  through  the  fact  that  it  suited  the  con- 
ditions of  agriculture  and  of  society.  When  once  this 
custom  had  been  settled,  there  was  no  doubt  among  the 


LAW  235 

farmers  as  to  what  ought  to  be  done,  so  that  the  field 
was  plowed,  or  mown,  or  pastured,  according  to  the  pre- 
vailing rule.  No  one  would  think,  at  least  till  fertilizers 
were  devised,  of  departing  from  the  rule  which  custom 
had  fixed.  Under  such  conditions  there  is  no  need  of 
a  statute  to  define  what  ought  to  be  done,  nor  of  an 
official  to  enforce  it.  The  common  judgment,  based  on 
the  utility  of  the  practice,  is  quite  sufficient  to  give  sanc- 
tion to  the  rule. 

In  the  early  communities,  when  men  were  simple  herd- 
ers, or  tillers  of  the  soil,  life  would  be  so  simple  that  the 
rules  of  custom  would  furnish  much  the  larger  part  of 
the  means  of  social  control.  When  new  employments 
bring  in  a  division  of  labor,  so  that  sowing  and  reaping, 
grinding  the  grain  and  weaving  the  cloth,  are  no  longer 
done  by  a  single  person,  life  becomes  so  complex  that 
customs  fail  to  serve  the  end  of  social  control.  Sir  Henry 
Maine  has  been  the  chief  exponent  in  English  of  this 
view  of  the  early  form  of  law.  Taking  India  as  his  field 
of  study,  he  considers  the  village  community  the  earliest 
form  of  society  and  in  this  community  there  was  no 
enacting  of  law;   everything  was  ruled  by  custom. 

Decrees  the  Earliest  Form  of  Written  Law, 

The  reason  why  one  should  call  the  early  enactments 
decrees,  rather  than  statutes,  is  because  the  king,  who 
was  the  lawgiver,  issued  special  orders  for  special  cases, 
instead  of  laying  down  a  general  rule  to  cover  a  whole 
class  of  cases.  In  discussing  the  legal  conception  of  the 
term  "  state,"  in  one  of  the  previous  chapters,  reference 


236  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

was  made  to  the  views  of  Hobbes.  The  central  idea  of 
the  legal  system  of  Hobbes  is  that  law  is  a  command 
issued  by  a  sovereign  to  a  subject,  and  depending  for 
its  enforcement  upon  his  superior  might.  Contrary  to  the 
conditions  where  custom  is  thought  to  rule,  force  is  here 
the  chief  factor  in  law.  It  is  for  the  sovereign  to  com- 
mand ;  for  the  subject  to  obey.  As  has  been  suggested, 
the  first  commands  are  aimed  at  isolated  cases,  only  in 
more  advanced  legal  conditions  are  general  rules  formu- 
lated. 

Without  going  at  length  into  a  discussion  of  the  devel- 
opment of  legislation,  it  may  be  said  that  the  theory  o-f 
law  studied  in  our  law  schools  is  derived  from  English 
sources  and  is  drawn  from  Hobbes.  Now  it  is  clear 
that  if  law  comes  altogether  through  the  act  of  the  legis- 
lator, be  it  king  or  Parliament,  custom  is  ruled  out  of  the 
question.  But  the  flaw  in  this  conclusion,  which  shows 
that  it  is  invalid,  is  that  history  furnishes  abundant  evi- 
dence of  a  rule  by  custom.  The  conception  of  Hobbes 
was  not  based  on  a  study  of  history,  but  on  a  philosophical 
theory  which  was  altogether  unhistorical.  Yet,  in  this 
case,  as  in  the  conflicts  previously  noted,  we  get  at  the 
fact  by  combining  the  truth  which  is  found  in  each  claim. 
Custom  has  its  place,  but  it  fails  when  society  becomes 
so  complex  that  difficulties  arise  with  which  custom  can 
not  deal.  This  situation  calls  for  the  legislator  who  cuts 
the  knot  with  a  statute  which  becomes  a  rule  in  all  like 
cases. 

One  of  the  defects  of  custom  as  law,  lies  in  the  fact 
that  changes  must  be  made  very  slowly,  if  made  at  all. 


LAW  237 

A  government  administration  is  scarcely  more  than  a 
mouthpiece  for  the  average  man  if  it  is  only  the  executor 
of  custom.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  legal  development 
will  be  necessarily  slow  if  it  must  wait  the  growth  of 
custom  to  put  the  new  idea  into  general  practice.  In 
early  society  custom  was  the  usual  rule  and  changes 
came  about  very  slowly,  legislation  playing  a  very  small 
part  in  the  work.  But  with  social  development,  legis- 
lation steadily  encroached  on  the  field  of  custom,  until 
at  the  present  time  legislation  has  nearly  driven  custom 
from  certain  spheres  of  social  control.  The  regulation 
of  the  home  is  left  to  custom,  but  nearly  the  whole  field 
of  business  operations,  which  make  so  large  a  part  of 
modern  life,  is  occupied  by  legislation.  Nor  does  it 
appear,  from  present  indications,  that  Mr.  Herbert  Spen- 
cer's ideal  of  the  abdication  of  government,  is  likely  to 
be  realized.  Legislation  is  in  continual  demand  to  re- 
strain this  influence  and  to  promote  that  one.  Indeed 
it  is  the  socialist  ideal,  in  which  legislation  is  in  control  in 
all  spheres  of  lfe,  that  is  looming  up  in  the  distance.  To 
sum  up  the  points  suggested  in  the  preceding  paragraphs, 
custom  nearly  monopolizes  the  field  of  early  law,  while 
legislation  holds  a  larger  relative  place  with  each  century 
of  development.  The  three  forms  in  which  law  is  known 
in  modern  usage  are  common  and  statute  law  and  con- 
stitutions. 

i.    Constitutions. 

Hamilton  defined  the  constitution  as : — "The  declaration 
of  principles  by  which  we  have  chosen  to  be  governed." 


238  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

According  to  this  definition  the  constitution  is  made  up 
of  the  principles,  drawn  from  the  life  of  the  people,  for 
the  setting  up  of  government,  the  adjustment  of  its  dif- 
ferent departments,  with  directions  to  guide  each  in  the 
performance  of  its  functions.  The  definition  also  brings 
out  the  necessary  distinction  between  constitution  and 
statute,  in  that  the  former  has  to  do  with  principles,  the 
latter  with  the  application  of  principles.  The  constitution 
is  but  an  outline  of  what  the  Government  is  to  be  and 
to  do.  When  the  constitution  of  the  French  Republic 
was  drawn  up  in  a  convention  which  had  a  majority  of 
monarchists,  the  outline  was  limited  in  such  fashion 
that  if  the  monarchists  should  be  able  to  agree,  a  king 
could  be  brought  in  without  any  radical  change  in  the 
French  Constitution.  Our  own  frame  of  Government 
is  one  of  the  briefest  among  the  written  constitutions, 
leaving  to  Congress,  among  other  duties,  the  creLcion 
of  the  whole  system  of  federal  courts. 

Indeed,  the  Federal  Constitution  was  much  briefer  than 
was  palatable  to  many  of  the  ratifying  conventions  in 
the  Commonwealths  and  the  first  ten  amendments,  the 
American  Bill  of  Rights,  embody  only  a  part  of  the 
changes  and  additions  which  were  proposed  by  the  Com- 
monwealth Conventions.  All  these  amendments  aim  at 
one  end,  the  limiting  of  the  powers  of  Congress,  the 
people  not  being  entirely  satisfied  with  the  statement  of 
the  framers  of  the  Constitution,  that  since  it  ordained 
a  Government  of  limited  powers,  it  was  needless  to  for- 
bid the  Government  to  use  the  powers  which  had  not  been 
given  to  it.    It  had  been  the  fear  of  the  people  of  that 


LAW  239 

time,  with  the  memory  of  George  Third  in  mind,  that 
the  Government  would  encroach  on  individual  liberty, 
therefore  these  amendments  were  adopted  to  guard  the 
people  against  any  excessive  use  of  power  by  Congress. 
Still  with  these  additions,  and  those  added  in  connection 
with  the  slavery  question,  there  is  little  in  the  Consti- 
tution which  ought  to  be  in  statute  instead.  It  is  a 
declaration  of  principles  which  leaves  their  application 
to  Congress  and  the  courts. 

In  the  Commonwealth  Constitutions,  on  the  other  hand, 
there  are  many  instances  of  non-constitutional  provisions. 
These  parts  of  the  frame  of  government  deserve  the 
name  non-constitutional,  since  they  are  not  general  prin- 
ciples such  as  properly  find  a  place  in  the  Constitution, 
but  are  rather  the  application  of  principles  to  remedy 
wrongs.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  the  Constitutions 
of  the  American  Commonwealths  do  not  in  all  cases 
conform  to  the  definition  offered  at  the  beginning  of  this 
section. 

The  apparent  reason  for  incorporating  in  the  Constitu- 
tion those  legal  features  which  belong  in  statute  law, 
is  the  prevailing  distrust  of  legislators.  This  is  illus- 
trated in  the  attempts  which  have  been  made  to  curb 
the  aggressions  of  the  liquor  power.  It  was  founH  that 
when  the  pressure  of  public  opinion  compelled  a  legis- 
lature to  prohibit  the  traffic,  the  subsidence  of  the  agi- 
tation was  followed  by  the  repeal  of  the  measure.  In 
order  to  prevent  this  setting  aside  of  the  popular  measure 
through  the  influence  of  the  liquor  interest  on  the  poli- 
ticians in  control,  it  was  thought  best  in  many  Common- 


240  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

wealths  to  place  the  prohibitory  measure  in  the  Con- 
stitution, where  it  would  not  be  subject  to  the  will  of  the 
legislators.  Iowa  presents  the  novel  situation  of  a  pro- 
hibitory clause  in  the  Constitution,  which  the  legislature 
could  not  remove,  while  a  provision  is  made  in  statute 
law  that  any  parties  paying  a  certain  tax  for  the  privilege 
of  selling  liquor  shall  be  exempt  from  prosecution  for 
the  violation  of  the  Constitution.  A  better  safeguard 
of  the  public  welfare  would  seem  to  lie  in  the  election 
of  officials  who  had  a  wholesome  regard  for  the  oath  of 
office  and  for  the  social  welfare. 

2,    Statute  Law. 

Statute  law  differs  from  the  principles  of  government 
that  are  embodied  in  the  constitution,  not  only  in  matter, 
but  in  manner  of  enactment.  Our  Federal  Constitution, 
and  the  Commonwealth  Constitutions  for  the  most  part, 
are  ratified  by  some  form  of  the  referendum,  while 
statute  law  is  enacted  by  Congress,  or  legislature.  The 
function  of  statute  law  is  to  apply  the  principles  in  the 
constitution  for  the  solution  of  the  various  questions 
which  arise  in  the  administration  of  government.  Guided 
by  the  constitution,  the  legislature  has  the  duty  of  fram- 
ing such  measures  as  will  repress  the  unsocial  elements 
in  society  and  encourage  those  that  assist  the  social 
development.  The  older  idea  that  the  legislator  had 
only  the  negative  function  of  guarding  life  and  property 
fits  neither  the  present  ideas,  nor  the  present  social  needs. 
He  has  also  the  positive  duty  of  directing  the  social  forces 
into  the  most  fruitful  channels. 


LAW  241 

This  leads  to  the  suggestion  that  the  legislator  has  an 
individuality  of  his  own  and  is  not  simply  an  executor 
of  public  opinion.  Public  opinion  is  fairly  representative 
of  what  the  average  man  thinks,  and  if  the  law  was 
framed  according  to  that  standard,  it  would  lift  the 
thought  of  the  man  who  lives  below  the  average,  while 
it  might  retard  the  man  who  had  made  greater  advance- 
ment. Law  is  an  efficient  educator  and  therefore  it 
should  be  as  advanced  as  public  opinion  will  tolerate.  If 
any  social  advance  is  being  made  the  statute  will  soon 
be  antiquated  and  need  replacement.  It  is  unfortunate 
that  this  ideal  conception  of  the  legislator  as  a  moral 
pioneer  of  public  opinion  is  so  far  from  the  reality,  since 
he  is  often  inclined  to  legislate  on  the  lowest  level  that 
will  be  tolerated.  Professor  Burgess  has  said  that  in 
America  we  have  a  democratic  State  with  an  aristo- 
cratic Government,  and,  taken  in  the  sense  in  which  it 
was  meant,  it  expresses  the  theory  of  our  Government. 
It  was  not  meant  to  be  a  rule  by  the  lowest,  as  is  often 
the  case,  nor  even  by  the  average  man.  It  was,  in  theory, 
a  rule  by  the  best  men.  As  Carlyle  stated  it,  the  fittest 
should  rule,  and  these  should  be  the  free  choice  of  a 
free  people. 

This  was  the  idea  that  lay  at  the  basis  of  the  original 
plan  for  the  election  of  the  President.  Each  Common- 
wealth was  to  select  its  most  capable  men  and  these  men, 
meeting  without  instructions,  were  to  cast  their  votes 
for  the  best  man,  regardless  of  party,  for  the  office  of 
President  of  the  United  States.  While  Washington  was 
the  candidate,  the  plan  worked  with  success;   but  with 


242  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

his  withdrawal  from  the  field  the  party  idea  came  to  the 
front,  so  that  the  electoral  college,  instead  of  being  a 
meeting  of  the  wise  men  to  deliberate  as  had  been  in- 
tended, became  a  mere  device  for  recording  the  wishes 
of  the  voters  of  one  of  the  political  parties.  Such  a 
position  gives  neither  honor,  nor  power,  to  the  members 
of  the  electoral  college,  and  it  comes  near  to  expressing 
the  idea  which  the  average  official  has  of  his  duty.  He 
is  to  keep  his  ear  to  the  ground  in  order  to  make  his 
measure  take  the  popular  tone.  Such  men  do  not  make 
the  State,  since  they  are  politicians  and  not  statesmen.  It 
has  been  said  that  a  statesman  is  a  politician  that  is 
dead,  but  even  this  fails  to  win  the  desired  title  to  fame 
in  many  cases.  Unless  the  legislator  is  better  able  than 
the  average  man  to  judge  "  the  relations  which  belong  to 
the  nature  of  things  "  and  to  crystallize  these  relations 
into  statutes,  history  will  scarcely  write  his  name  among 
the  immortals. 

j.    Common  Law. 

It  is  difficult  to  state  a  working  definition  for  common 
law  which  shall,  at  the  same  time,  be  brief  and  com- 
prehensive. Perhaps  no  legal  authority  has  succeeded 
better  than  Chancellor  Kent,  who  defines  the  common 
law  as  "  those  principles,  usages  and  rules  of  action  appli- 
cable to  the  government  and  security  of  persons  and 
property,  which  do  not  rest  for  their  authority  upon  any 
express  and  positive  declaration  of  the  will  of  the  legis- 
lature." According  to  this  definition  the  common  law 
is  comprehended  in  the  immemorial  customs  of  the  people 


LAW  243 

and  in  the  decisions  of  the  courts  based  upon  these 
customs. 

The  common  law  in  this  country  includes  in  addition  to 
the'  customs  and  usages  of  England  which  the  colonists 
brought  with  them,  the  parliamentary  guarantees  of  free- 
dom which  preceded  the  English  settlement  in  America, 
since  the  most  important  part  of  the  common  law  is  that 
which  concerns  the  liberty  of  the  citizen.  At  different 
times  in  the  history  of  England,  statutes  were  passed 
declarative  of  common  law  principles.  The  first  of  these 
is  the  royal  confirmation  of  common  law  principles  by 
King  John  at  Runnymede  in  121 5.  The  Great  Charter, 
as  it  was  called,  professed  to  be  only  a  confirmation 
of  the  good  old  laws  with  which  the  people  had  long 
been  familiar.  The  second  of  these  great  affirmations 
of  common  law  was  the  Petition  of  Rights,  granted  by 
Charles  First,  declaring  again  the  principles  of  the  Great 
Charter,  which  had  been  set  aside  through  usurpations 
by  the  crown.  The  third  of  these  acts  was  the  Habeas 
Corpus  Act,  passed  during  the  reign  of  Charles  Second, 
which  did  not  alter  the  principles  of  the  preceding  meas- 
ures, but  provided  for  their  greater  efficiency  through 
their  application  by  the  courts.  The  fourth  of  these  great 
English  charters  of  liberty  was  the  Bill  of  Rights,  adopted 
by  Parliament  in  the  reign  of  William  Third,  which  for- 
bade the  king  to  set  aside  the  laws  of  the  realm. 

English  and  American  liberty  has  its  legal  basis  in  the 
common  law  of  which  these  acts  form  a  part.  They 
did  not  create  the  liberties  which  they  expressed,  but 
affirmed  them  for  the  guidance  of  the  Government,  whicii 


244  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

was  inclined  to  encroach  upon  the  rights  of  the  citizen. 
The  right  of  trial  by  jury,  the  provision  that  the  accused 
shall  not  be  compelled  to  testify  against  himself,  belong 
to  common  law  principles,  which  antedated  the  settle- 
ment of  America. 

While  the  common  law,  upon  which  the  jurisprudence 
of  the  American  Commonwealths  rests,  includes  statutes 
as  well  as  ancient  custom,  in  later  usage  the  line  between 
common  and  statute  law  is  drawn  as  in  Chancellor  Kent's 
definition.  This  difference  does  not  lie  in  the  subject 
matter,  since  the  statutes  embody,  frequently,  a  principle 
which  had  been  realized  in  the  common  law.  When  the 
principle  is  written  in  statute  form  it  ceases  to  bear 
the  name  of  common  law. 

It  is  a  recognized  maxim  in  law  that  we  do  not  know 
the  meaning  of  a  statute  until  the  court  has  passed  upon 
it.  Whatever  the  judicial  decision  may  be. on  the  case 
which  comes  up  for  action,  that  is  the  legal  meaning  of 
the  law.  This  maxim,  which  applies  specially  to  statute, 
is  also  applicable  when  the  court  is  called  upon  to  pass 
on  long  established  custom,  since  the  decision  in  this 
case  defines  the  common  law.  Thus  in  both  statute  and 
common  law  cases,  the  courts  interpret  the  law.  A 
decision  of  the  courts  based  upon  custom  has  the  same 
sanction  as  if  based  on  statute.  Both  are  enforceable 
by  the  ordinary  legal  process. 

The  question  might  arise  at  this  point  as  to  why 
common  law  was  written  in  statute  form  at  all,  since 
it  has  equal  authority  in  the  former  stage.  The  change 
becomes  necessary  through  a  conflict  of  customs,  or  of 


LAW  245 

decisions  based  upon  them,  which  requires  a  statute  to 
settle  the  disputed  point  and  give  a  basis  for  judicial 
action.  So  long  as  customs,  and  decisions  upon  them, 
agree  it  does  not  appear  that  the  legislator  needs  to 
interfere.  The  rule  of  primogeniture  in  England,  by 
which  the  eldest  son  inherits  the  landed  estate,  has 
come  down  from  the  feudal  times  when  it  was  necessary 
for  the  king  to  keep  the  land  in  the  hands  of  those  who 
could  come  to  his  aid  in  war;  yet  while  it  has  had  such 
an  effect  on  English  life  for  centuries,  it  still  remains 
a  part  of  the  common  law.  Statute  law  could  not  set 
out  this  principle  in  clearer  outline  than  it  has  attained  in 
common  law. 


Ancient  Law,  Maine;  Law  of  the  Ancient  Hebrews,  Wines; 
Law,  Lacy;  Spirit  of  the  Laws,  Montesquien;  Early  Law  and 
Custom,  Maine;  Political  Science  and  Constitutional  Law,  Bur- 
gess. 


AUTHORITY 

Sovereignty  finds  expression  through  its  two  phases 
of  authority  and  law.  In  practice  these  two  factors  may 
not  with  safety,  be  separated.  Eliminate  law  from  au- 
thority and  it  leaves  only  tyranny;  take  authority  away 
from  law  and  only  anarchy  remains.  It  is  when  they  are 
used  in  conjunction,  each  performing  its  own  function, 
that  sovereignty  works  out  the  social  end. 

Authority  Rests  on  Right. 

Napoleon  once  said  that  we  could  do  almost  anything 
with  bayonets  but  sit  on  them.  We  paraphrase  the  epi- 
gram of  the  Corsican  by  saying  that  while  force  is  an 
essential  element  of  authority,  it  may  not  be  made  its 
basis.  History  records  many  cases  where  illegal  meas- 
ures have  been  enforced  by  police  powers,  with  a  disre- 
gard of  justice,  but  history  also  affirms  that  this  has  not 
been  a  permanent  condition.  Napoleon  held  Prussia  in 
subjection  through  most  of  his  campaigns,  partly  by 
means  of  his  ascendancy  over  the  mind  of  the  Prussian 
king,  though  mainly  by  force,  even  compelling  the  Prus- 
sians to  fight  under  his  leadership;  but  the  outburst  of 
Prussian  patriotism  which  crowded  Blucher's  regiments 
and  blasted  the  hopes  of  Napoleon  at  Waterloo,  showed 
that  force  could  not  repress  national  feeling. 

Force  mav  be  a  temporary  but  not  a  permanent  ae- 

246 


AUTHORITY  247 

pendence.  Rousseau  states  the  case  when  he  says :  "  The 
strongest  is  never  strong  enough  to  be  always  master, 
unless  he  transforms  might  into  right  and  obedience  into 
duty."  It  is  by  this  means  that  it  occurs  at  rare  intervals, 
that  the  conquest  of  the  homes  of  a  people  is  transformed' 
into  a  conquest  of  their  hearts.  Charlemagne  pushed  his 
armies  quite  across  the  German  lands,  but  while  the 
conquest  was  won  by  the  warrior  it  was  secured  by  the 
priest.  What  had  been  subdued  by  force  of  arms  was 
brought  to  loyal  obedience  by  the  Gospel.  It  was  not 
many  years  after  the  bloody  struggle,  a  generation  long, 
that  a  Saxon  monk,  forgetting  the  heroic  defense  which 
his  countrymen  had  made,  sang  the  praises  of  the  Franks 
who  had  brought  them  out  of  heathen  darkness  into  the 
Gospel  light.  The  highest  loyalty  is  found  only  when 
it  is  given  for  conscience  sake.  Such  loyalty  the  despot 
never  earns  and  never  knows.  Authority  appeals  to  con- 
science only  when  the  rule  is  based  on  right.  It  is  for 
this  reason  that  righteous  laws  make  for  the  stability  and 
permanence  of  a  Government. 

Authority  Is  from  God. 

This  follows  from  the  proposition  already  demon- 
strated that  God  is  sovereign.  Authority  always  goes 
back  to  a  sovereign,  therefore  authority  finds  its  sanction 
in  God.  Paul  writes  in  his  political  instructions  to  the 
Roman  Christians:  "The  powers  (authorities)  that  be 
are  ordained  of  God."  That  is  the  final  basis  of  all 
authority.  The  contest  which  was  waged  so  long  over 
the  question  of  inherent  powers  in  government  is  easily 


248  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

resolved  when  the  social  structure  is  understood.  Gov- 
ernment has  authority  delegated  to  it  to  perform  its 
duties,  but  it  has  no  inherent  authority  to  do  anything. 
This  authority  comes  to  the  Government  from  the  State, 
but  it  is  inexact  to  speak  of  any  inherent  authority  in 
the  State.  That  is  not  the  final  step  in  its  location.  God 
has  inherent  powers;  institutions  have  that  which  is 
conferred  on  them  by  law. 

Each  one  who  exercises  authority  must  derive  it  di- 
rectly, or  indirectly,  from  God.  The  official  of  Church 
or  State,  the  father  in  the  family,  each  traces,  properly, 
the  authority  which  he  exercises  to  the  common  source. 
Authority  may  have  passed,  as  in  political  affairs,  through 
several  intermediaries,  but  its  ultimate  source  is  the 
same.  It  is  this  fact  which  makes  possible  the  co-opera- 
tion of  all  social  institutions,  under  a  common  authority, 
toward  a  common  end.  If  authority  is  properly  used, 
the  family  function  will  harmonize  with  the  Church, 
the  Government,  the  industrial  order, —  each  aiding  all 
others  by  doing  its  own  particular  work.  All  social  insti- 
tutions, provided  that  they  have  a  legitimate  function, 
are  thus  designed  to  integrate  with  one  another  in  a 
harmonious  system  under  a  supreme  will.  It  is  for  this 
reason,  if  for  no  other,  that  this  conception  of  the  social 
system  should  appeal  alike  to  the  philosopher  who  seeks 
a  principle  which  will  unify  the  social  life,  and  to  the 
man  of  practical  affairs  who  is  looking  for  daily  guidance. 

The  Use  and  the  Abuse  of  Authority. 

While  individuals,  parents  for  example,  have  authority 


AUTHORITY  249 

given  them  to  direct  and  correct  their  children,  it  is 
possible  to  abuse  the  privilege.  It  is  for  this  reason  that, 
while  the  father  has  authority  over  the  child,  the  com- 
munity has  found  it  necessary  to  limit  his  use  of  it.  The 
various  agents  for  the  prevention  of  cruelty  to  children 
and  to  animals,  witness  to  the  fact  that  the  adminis- 
trator of  authority  frequently  requires  interference  in 
his  affairs.  The  policeman  brings  home  to  the  parent 
who  outrages  the  feelings  of  the  neighborhood,  the 
truth  that  the  use  of  authority  must  be  distinguished 
from  its  abuse. 

Where  should  the  limitation  in  the  use  of  authority 
be  placed?  Evidently  at  that  point  where  law  is  elim- 
inated from  authority,  and  mere  force  is  used.  Force 
used  lawfully  is  authorized;  used  unlawfully,  it  is  crim- 
inal. The  father  is  arrested  and  punished  who  maltreats 
his  child,  or  the  driver  who  abuses  his  horse.  The  same 
principles  apply  with  equal  aptitude  to  other  instances 
of  the  abuse  of  authority,  though  there  is  not  always 
such  ready  machinery,  or  wish,  to  call  the  offending 
party  to  account.  Authority  is  a  trust  which  may  not 
be  held  irresponsibly.  If  the  user  had  inherent  authority, 
there  might  not  be  any  legal  interference  with  him  in 
its  exercise,  but  there  is  neither  individual,  nor  insti- 
tution, that  may  claim  such  high  prerogative.  Authority 
must  follow  the  provisions  of  law. 

Delegation  of  Authority. 

Delegation  is  the  method  by  which  authority  is  given 
by  the   sovereign  to  the  subordinate  agencies  through 


250  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

which  he  works.  Sovereignty  may  be  surrendered,  which 
means  the  lapsing  of  it,  but  may  not  be  delegated.  So 
long  as  sovereignty  is  retained,  authority  may  be  placed 
in  the  hands  of  any  agency  to  carry  out  the  purpose 
of  the  sovereign.  The  method  of  delegating  authority 
may  be  illustrated  by  a  business  house  sending  out  an 
agent  to  sell  goods.  So  long  as  he  represents  the  house, 
the  salesman  has  explicit  instructions  in  regard  to  his 
duties.  He  is  informed  as  to  the  length  of  time  for  which 
credit  may  be  extended,  he  is  told  the  price  which  he 
may  make  to  customers  and  the  guarantees  which  may 
be  given  with  the  goods.  So  long  as  he  keeps  within 
the  specifications  of  his  instructions,  he  acts  with  au- 
thority, and  the  house  will  carry  out  his  contracts.  The 
agent  has  no  authority  to  go  beyond  his  instructions  and 
does  so  at  his  own  risk.  In  such  a  case  he  is  acting 
without  authority  and  his  acts  are  discredited  by  the 
house. 

i.     God  Delegates  Authority  to  Jesus  Christ. 

God,  as  essential,  does  not  deal  directly  with  the  indi- 
vidual, nor  with  the  State.  It  is  the  explicit  teaching  of 
the  Bible  that  after  man  had  sinned,  thus  marring  the 
image  of  God  in  which  he  was  created,  he  could  deal  with 
the  essential  God  only  through  a  mediator.  The  mediation 
between  God  and  man  was  effected  by  the  death  of  Jesus 
Christ  upon  the  cross  and  He  becomes  the  mediator,  the 
one  who  reconciles  man  to  God  and  acts  as  the  inter- 
mediary in  all  matters.  It  is,  therefore,  through  Jesus 
Christ  that  God  acts  in  his  dealing  with  men  and  it  is 


AUTHORITY  251 

to  Jesus  Christ  that  all  authority  is  delegated  for  the 
control  of  human  affairs.  This  conclusion  does  not 
carry  with  it  the  idea  that  God  is  passive  in  social  control, 
for  since  God  is  spirit,  and  it  is  in  the  nature  of  spirit  to 
be  active,  to  conceive  of  Him  as  passive  would  be  impos- 
sible. God,  the  Father,  is  active,  but  He  acts  through 
Jesus  Christ,  the  Son. 

The  relation  and  function  of  each  person  of  the  God- 
head as  set  forth  in  the  Bible,  may  be  crudely  illustrated 
by  the  division  of  labor  among  the  partners  in  a  business 
firm.  Where  there  are  three  partners  in  the  business 
house,  one  of  them  may  give  his  attention  to  the  sales 
department,  another  attends  to  the  advertising,  a  third 
to  selling  the  goods.  This  gives  a  division  of  labor  and 
allows  each  member  of  the  firm  a  special  function,  but 
it  does  not  mean  that  the  firm  has  been  dissolved  by 
such  division  of  work.  It  has  not  become  three  inde- 
pendent workers,  but  has  been  differentiated  for  greater 
efficiency.  Each  member,  notwithstanding  his  separate 
duty,  perhaps  because  of  it,  is  carrying  out  the  will  of  the 
firm.  The  firm  acts  through  him  in  his  work.  The  firm 
sets  him  apart  for  that  special  work.  By  some  such 
analogy  may  we  understand  how  the  administration  of 
the  world  is  given  to  Jesus  Christ,  and  yet  God  be  active 
in  it  all.  , 

By  the  records  in  the  New  Testament,  we  understand 
how  universally  that  control  was  exercised.  In  physical 
nature  the  birds,  the  grass  of  the  field,  the  waves,  the 
wind, —  all  owned  his  control.  In  the  multitudes  which 
thronged  Jesus  He  banished  disease,   He  restored  the 


252  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

deformed,  and  made  men  spiritually  as  well  as  physically 
whole.  Material  goods  He  said  would  be  added  to  him 
who  put  first  "the  Kingdom  of  God  and  His  righteous- 
ness."  The  Gospel  of  John  is  prefaced  by  the  declaration 
that  Jesus  Christ  made  the  universe,  thus  giving  an 
authoritative  interpretation  of  the  first  verse  of  Genesis. 

It  was  the  idea  of  the  ancient  philosophers  that  all 
matter  must  be  deduced  from  one  original  element  so  that 
there  might  be  unity  in  all.  Such  is  likewise  the  demand 
of  modern  science,  when  it  searches  for  the  principle 
in  control.  Without  some  such  supremacy,  science  would 
be  a  thing  of  "  shreds  and  patches."  While  the  scientist 
may,  and  often  does,  reject  the  idea  that  the  will  of  God 
gives  unity  to  all  things,  he  is  compelled  to  put  something 
in  his  room.  There  must  be  either  supreme  force  of 
matter,  or  supreme  will  of  mind.  Science  must  have 
one  or  other  of  these  premises.  If  the  scientist  rejects 
the  will  of  God  as  the  means  of  control,  he  is  reduced 
to  the  necessity  of  making  life  and  thought  a  result 
of  some  combination  of  matter  and  motion,  he  has 
to  govern  man  by  the  same  law  as  the  pebble  at  his 
feet.  What  the  scientist  thus  worships  ignorantly,  is 
declared  in  the  teaching  of  the  Christ.  He  is  the  "  per- 
sistent force,"  His  is  the  will  which  shapes  "  the  fortui- 
tous concourse  of  atoms  "  and  regulates  the  H  reasonable 
sequence  of  the  unintended." 

Science  could  not  have  a  being  without  the  universal 
presence  of  the  Spirit  which  brooded  over  the  chaos  of  the 
primeval  day,  except  by  deifying  one  of  God's  creatures 
in  his  room.     The  materialist  insists  on  the  necessity 


AUTHORITY  253 

of  a  universal  law,  and  the  mind  may  not  stop  short 
of  premising  a  lawgiver.  Revelation  brings  in  the  neces- 
sary complement  of  science.  The  latter  deals  with  the 
thing  created;    revelation  includes  the  creator. 

Jesus  Christ  claims  to  be  supreme  in  the  administration 
of  the  universe.  In  His  commission  to  His  disciples  He 
declares :  "  All  authority  is  given  to  me  in  heaven 
and  on  earth."  There  is  no  reservation.  A  passage  in 
the  life  of  Jesus  Christ  which  is  sometimes  misunder- 
stood, occurs  in  the  trial  before  Pilate  when  the  Roman 
governor  questioned  Him  in  regard  to  the  charge  that 
He  was  organizing  a  rebellion  against  Rome  in  order 
to  set  up  again  the  Jewish  monarchy.  Seeing  that 
Pilate  had  not  understood  the  purpose  of  His  mission, 
nor  the  spirit  of  His  teaching,  Jesus  said :  "  My  King- 
dom is  not  of  this  world."  Not  a  few  have  interpreted 
this  saying  to  mean  that  this  is  the  devil's  world  and 
that  the  "  Kingdom  "  means  some  state  after  death  where 
the  will  of  Christ  is  to  be  done.  But  such  a  view  fails 
to  satisfy  reason,  for  the  Christ  who  created  and  governs 
this  world  can  not  thus  be  evicted  from  his  own  posses- 
sions. It  also  fails  to  satisfy  the  text  and  the  context. 
The  word  translated  "  of,"  in  the  saying  quoted  above, 
is  a  preposition  having  the  meaning  "  out  of,"  and  means 
that  His  Kingdom  does  not  have  its  origin  in  this  world. 
It  is  of  heavenly  birth  and  earthly  residence.  The  words 
of  Jesus  freely  translated  would  read  something  like  this : 
"My  Kingdom  is  not  of  the  kind  that  you  suppose. 
It  is  not  of  the  character  of  the  world.  If  it  were 
then  would  my  servants  fight,  as  do  the  followers  of 


254  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

other  rulers,  that  I  might  not  be  delivered  to  the  Jews. 
I  am  to  win  a  throne  but  not  by  sword  and  spear.  My 
Kingdom  is  not  from  hence."  With  this  reading  agrees 
the  word  which  came  to  John,  an  exile  on  Patmos,  the 
one  who  penned  the  saying  of  Jesus  just  explained. 
"  The  kingdoms  of  this  world  are  become  the  Kingdom 
of  our  Lord  and  of  His  Christ." 

In  an  earlier  chapter  of  this  same  Gospel  of  John,  Jesus 
is  quoted  as  saying  of  His  disciples :  "  Ye  are  not  of 
this  world  even  as  I  am  not  of  this  world."  We  have 
here  the  same  use  of  the  Greek  words  as  in  the  saying 
of  Christ :  "  My  Kingdom  is  not  of  this  world,"  and  if 
the  Kingdom  does  not  have  any  place  in  existing  society, 
but  only  in  some  future  state,  the  same  must  be  said 
of  the  disciples.  Few  will  claim  that  Peter  and  his  com- 
rades had  not  existence  except  in  a  future  state.  Such 
an  interpretation  is  not  well  considered.  However  the 
present  conditions  may  suggest  an  opposite  conclusion, 
there  is  the  explicit  assurance  in  the  Bible  that  the 
Kingdom  which  was  inaugurated  among  men  in  the 
beginning  will  yet  be  realized  on  the  earth.  That  was  the 
purpose  of  the  life  and  death  of  Jesus  Christ  and  this 
purpose  must  be  realized. 

With  this  conclusion,  philosophy  and  science  are  in 
agreement,  since  both  look  forward  to  an  ideal  society 
on  earth.  Comte  reads  this  into  his  Positive  Polity  when 
he  foretold  the  age  when  altruism  would  rule  in  the 
hearts  of  men,  while  St.  Simon,  the  master  at  whose 
feet  Comte  had  sat,  thought  like  the  disciples  of  Christ 
that  the  redemption  of  humanity   was   at  hand.     Mr. 


AUTHORITY  25s 

Herbert  Spencer  prophesied  the  time  when  society  would 
be  finally  differentiated,  when  matter  would  be  integrated 
and  motion  dissipated,  and  when  egoism  and  altruism 
would  be  in  perfect  equilibrium.  It  is  the  faith  of  the 
Christian  that  Jesus  Christ  is  to  rule  on  earth  through 
the  supremacy  of  His  law  in  the  hearts  of  men. 

The  Kingdom  of  God  in  the  Old  Testament, 

The  Kingdom  of  God  is  the  ideal  society  in  which 
civilization  is  to  culminate  and  the  Old  Testament  gives 
us  a  cross  section  of  its  development  by  tracing  the 
history  of  the  Hebrew  people.  For  some  reason,  which 
was  not  its  superiority  to  other  races,  the  Hebrew  was 
chosen  to  manifest  to  men  the  character  and  purpose  of 
God.  In  the  period  which  was  covered  by  the  Old  Tes- 
tament history,  the  individual  was  regarded  rather  as 
a  fraction  of  society  than  as  an  end  in  himself.  The 
institution  was  the  important  thing,  whether  family  or 
tribe;  the  individual  had  his  status  as  a  member  of 
these  institutions.  It  was  the  period  of  group  life.  It 
may  have  been  for  this  reason,  in  part,  that  God  sought 
to  make  Himself  known  to  men  through  group  life, 
instead  of  through  individual  life.  The  Hebrew  nation- 
ality was  grouped  about  their  conception  of  God.  The 
prophets  were  primarily  concerned  with  the  life  of  the 
group  rather  than  with  individual  interests.  They  were 
the  patriots  of  the  age  who  recognized  that  Jehovah 
either  prospered  or  punished  the  people  according  as  they 
were  obedient  or  disobedient  to  him.  While  they  had 
their  constitutional  king  and  something  corresponding 


256  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

to  the  modern  bi-cameral  system  of  legislation  in  the  body 
of  elders  and  princes  of  the  congregation,  it  was  recog- 
nized that  the  will  of  Jehovah  was  supreme  in  the  conduct 
of  affairs.  So  far  as  this  idea  was  realized,  the  Hebrew 
people  constituted  a  theocracy,  the  God-ruled.  Any 
State  which  accepts  Jesus  Christ  as  its  ruler,  and  His 
law  as  the  rule  of  the  social  life,  is  a  theocracy.  To  know 
His  will  the  Hebrew  went  to  the  oracle  or  to  the  prophet ; 
with  our  fuller  revelation,  we  may  go  to  the  written 
Word. 

The  Bible  from  its  beginning  to  its  end  is  the  history 
of  the  development  of  the  Kingdom  of  God,  and  its 
prophecy  is  unrealized  history.  Though  coming  very 
far  short  of  its  ideal,  the  Hebrew  State  was  a  type  of 
the  Christian  State  which  is  not  yet,  but  is  to  be.  David 
in  his  reliance  on  God,  though  not  in  his  grievous  faults, 
is  the  typical  ruler.  Solomon  proposes  to  extend  his  rule 
at  the  expense  of  the  principle  on  which  it  rests,  and 
the  kingdom  is  rent  to  save  the  principle.  The  prophets 
foretell  the  triumph  of  the  principle  and  the  wonderful 
rejuvenation  of  nature  and  man  with  which  its  perfect 
realization  is  to  be  accompanied.  John  the  Baptist  pre- 
pares the  way  for  the  Kingdom  through  his  preaching, 
and  gives  baptism  as  the  naturalization  rite  by  which 
the  Kingdom  is  entered.  Jesus  tells  his  disciples  that 
the  Kingdom  is  at  hand,  later, —  that  ft  is  among  them. 
The  apostles  proclaim  it  and  organize  themselves  for 
its  realization.  With  the  ascension  of  Jesus  Christ,  the 
Spirit  comes  to  develop  the  Kingdom  in  the  life.  The 
whole  Word  and  work  of  God  point  to  the  realization 


AUTHORITY  257 

of  a  process  which  has  been  going  on  through  the 
centuries,  the  acceptance  of  the  reign  of  Christ  over  the 
life  of  man  in  its  every  phase.  This  is  the  social  con- 
summation when  the  State  shall  be  permeated  by  the 
Spirit  and  shall  become  the  Kingdom  of  God. 

Jesus  Christ  Delegates  Authority  to  the  Organic  People. 

God  does  not  appoint  any  man,  family,  or  class,  to  exer- 
cise political  authority.  He  gives  that  authority  to  the 
people,  not  to  certain  individuals.  To  be  more  exact, 
He  gives  authority  to  the  social  spirit,  the  State.  It  is 
the  divine  purpose  that  the  will  of  the  spirit  which  is 
divine,  shall  find  expression  through  the  will  of  the 
spirit  which  is  human. 

Man  was  made  with  the  necessity  for  civil  rule. 
Hegel  says  truly  that  the  human  spirit  is  realized  only 
in  the  objective  world,  the  world  of  institutions.  It 
must  find  expression  through  these  to  be  itself.  In  an 
abstract  way  we  might  think  of  spirit  as  merely  sub- 
jective, disembodied,  but  in  reality  man  has  never  existed 
under  such  conditions.  He  lives  and  grows  in  the  Family, 
the  Church,  the  industrial  organization, —  the  objective 
world  to  which  Hegel  refers, —  of  which  the  State  is 
the  most  inclusive  institution.  Because  the  State  is  the 
most  inclusive  institution,  because  that  in  it  man  comes 
to  himself,  it  is  to  it  that  Jesus  Christ  delegates  authority 
to  administer  social  control.  It  is  necessary  that  order 
be  maintained,  that  disorder  be  repressed,  therefore  social 
control  is  a  necessity  for  the  realization  of  spirit. 

The  constitution  of  man's   nature  is  tne  law  wmcn 


258  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

he  must  follow  if  he  is  to  work  out  his  highest  possi- 
bilities, or  even  make  any  attainment.  By  this  constitu- 
tion man's  action  must  be  voluntary,  that  is,  it  must  be 
an  act  of  the  will.  Social  action  must  be  the  choice 
of  the  social  will.  It  is,  therefore,  to  this  will  that  Jesus 
Christ  gives  authority  in  social  affairs,  this  will  which  is 
held  responsible  for  the  work  done.  Now,  this  being 
the  case,  it  is  evident  that  Christ  does  not  confer  author- 
ity on  any  family,  since  the  family  is  subordinate  to  the 
social  will.  The  greatest  thing  in  man  is  mind;  the 
greatest  thing  in  society  is  the  social  mind.  It  is  to 
this  mind  that  authority  is  delegated  and  thus  the  will 
of  God  purposes  to  find  expression  through  the  social 
will. 

There  is  not  a  certain  amount  of  social  authority 
vested  in  each  individual,  say  one  eighty-millionth  part 
of  the  whole  in  United  States.  No  man  has  any  author- 
ity whatever  over  another  in  civil  affairs  unless  it  has 
been  given  to  him  by  the  State,  which  is  the  sole  legatee. 
This  truth  has  its  special  application  in  these  days  when 
mob  violence  frequently  sets  aside  the  legal  authorities. 
It  makes  no  difference  whether  one  man  or  a  hundred 
men  take  the  life  of  the  supposed  criminal,  it  is  murder 
no  less  and  each  individual  in  the  mob  must  answer 
for  it  to  God,  if  not  to  the  civil  law. 

The  normal  course  of  social  action  is  for  the  State 
to  make  choice  of  certain  ends  after  a  review  of  the 
situation,  though  it  is  unfortunately  true  that  frequently 
this  consideration  fails  to  take  in  the  whole  set  of  con- 
ditions.    This  is  what  makes  the  social  or  individual 


AUTHORITY  259 

act  faulty.  When  the  State,  acting  through  the  Govern- 
ment, licenses  the  liquor  traffic,  there  is  the  consideration 
of  the  revenue  to  be  gained  and,  perhaps,  some  consid- 
eration of  lessening  the  consumption  of  the  beverage. 
But  the  social  consequences  are  not  fully  considered. 
Since  it  is  to  the  social  mind  that  Christ  delegates 
authority  to  deal  with  such  issues,  since  the  State  is 
held  responsible  for  the  decision  made,  the  social  prob- 
lems demand  attention  in  all  their  aspects.  The  State, 
no  more  than  the  individual,  is  authorized  to  do  wrong. 
It  has  the  necessity  of  choosing,  but  must  render  account 
for  the  choice.  To  sum  up  the  preceding  paragraphs, 
it  is  to  the  State,  the  social  spirit  which  is  capable  of 
reason  and  of  choice,  that  Jesus  Christ  delegates  au- 
thority. 

In  popular  speech,  social  control  is  located  in  the  will 
of  the  people.  Does  this  will  of  the  people  mean  the 
same  thing  as  what  has  been  called  here  the  social  will? 
Is  the  mind  of  the  people  of  which  this  will  must  be  a 
phase,  simply  the  social  mind?  Does  popular  speech 
embody  the  latest  teaching  of  social  philosophy,  the  psy- 
chological view  of  the  State?  With  proper  qualifications 
it  would  seem  that  all  these  questions  are  to  be  answered 
affirmatively.  The  common  mind  has  somehow  grasped 
the  great  social  fact  which  philosophers  had  obscured 
with  their  wisdom,  and  the  main  object  of  these  pages 
is  to  interpret  this  social  fact. 

But  who  are  "the  people"  whose  will  is  in  control? 
Does  this  mean  a  certain  family,  or  class,  or  even  some 
sex  distinction?    Evidently  not,  since  will  is  not  limited 


26o  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

by  any  of  these  marks.  It  may  be  well  at  this  point  to 
recall  the  explanation  previously  given,  that  all  those 
belong  to  the  State  who  share  in  the  social  spirit.  Now 
it  is  clear  that  those  who  share  this  spirit,  must  share 
in  mind  which  is  one  of  the  attributes  of  spirit,  and  in  will 
which  is  one  of  the  phases  of  mind.  "  The  people  "  whose 
will  exercises  social  control  are  those  who  have  the 
common  mind.  This  would  mean  the  whole  population, 
so  far  as  they  are  capable  of  forming  opinions,  with  the 
exception  of  those  who  have  not  been  assimilated  to  the 
national  spirit. 

That  the  voters  do  not  comprise  "  the  people  "  in  this 
sense  is  evident  since  it  is  the  State  itself,  acting  through 
the  Government,  that  determines  the  qualifications  ot  the 
voters,  prescribing  these  qualifications  either  in  consti- 
tutional or  statute  law.  It  is  therefore  evident  that  the 
will  of  the  people  does  not  wait  for  its  existence  until 
a  voting  class  has  been  defined.  The  State  is  not  defined 
by  act  of  legislature  since  the  legislature  is  created  by 
the  State.  Whatever  may  have  been  the  philosophy  of 
the  men  in  the  Philadelphia  Convention  who  framed  the 
Constitution,  the  State  is  a  historic  fact  and  not  a  creature 
of  law.  This  is  clearly  recognized  in  the  popular  phrase 
"  the  will  of  the  people,"  for  will  is  not  brought  into  being 
by  act  of  legislature.  The  fact  seems  to  be  that  the  writers 
on  this  subject  have  been  led  astray  by  legal  terminology, 
while  the  common  mind  has  gotten  at  the  fact.  It  is  a 
question  in  psychology  and  not  in  law.  Everyone  who 
has  a  part  in  the  making  up  of  the  common  mind  shares 
in  social  control.    The  voters,  more  or  less  imperfectly, 


AUTHORITY  261 

express  this  common  mind,  and  a  king  if  he  were  wise 
enough,  might  do  the  same. 

The  real  gist  of  the  question  of  suffrage  for  women 
is  whether  the  social  mind  would  gain  a  better  expression 
if  sex  were  disregarded  in  voting.  It  can  not  be  a  ques- 
tion of  right,  for  a  woman  has  quite  as  good  a  right  to  her 
opinion  as  a  man  has  to  his,  so  that  if  it  is  to  be  settled 
by  her  right,  she  should  have  the  ballot.  But  the  real 
question  is  whether  the  social  will  would  be  more  clearly, 
more  intelligently  expressed. 

Some  writers  have  held  that  woman  is  the  psychological 
complement  of  man,  and  that  the  State  will  not  get  full 
and  clear  expression  in  social  action  until  women  have  a 
voice  in  political  affairs.  It  is  said,  on  the  other  hand, 
that  this  psychic  element  already  finds  a  place,  since 
it  now  influences  the  opinions  which  are  recorded  at 
the  polls.  The  essential  matter  both  for  the  individual 
and  the  social  mind  is  that  it  have  the  fullest  possible 
opportunity  for  development  through  expression.  That 
is  the  purpose  of  the  ballot. 

3.  The  Delegation  of  Authority    from  the  State  to  the 
Government, 

Even  as  the  will  of  Jesus  Christ  should  act  through 
the  social  will,  so  should  the  social  will  act  through  its 
institution,  the  Government.  The  Government  is  the 
agency  through  which  the  will  of  the  State  gets  its  great- 
est objective  efficiency.  Because  of  this  fact  it  is  neces- 
sary that  the  State  should  lay  down  its  rules  of  procedure 
for  the  Government,  so  that  the  State  may  secure  the 


262  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

objects  for  which  the  Government  was  set  up.  In  order 
to  make  sure  that  this  end  shall  not  be  missed,  it  is 
required  in  all  States  which  have  elective  rulers  that  they 
shall  take  oath  to  carry  out  the  will  of  the  State  as  laid 
down  in  law.  This  would  certainly  not  be  necessary  if  the 
Government  derived  its  authority  from  some  other  source. 
The  point  may  be  illustrated  by  various  incidents  in  the 
history  of  England. 

When  the  Norman  kings  gained  the  English  throne, 
while  the  legal  forms  of  coronation  were  gone  through, 
it  was  evident  that  they  owed  their  position  to  force  of 
arms  rather  than  the  popular  will  and,  therefore,  they 
did  not  feel  under  obligation  to  adhere  to  the  terms  of 
the  English  Constitution.  They  felt  themselves,  in  a 
degree,  independent  of  the  State.  But  when  the  Lan- 
castrian dynasty  came  into  power,  it  was  through  act 
of  Parliament  and  they  felt  the  necessity  of  ruling  as 
constitutional  monarchs.  They  had  been  raised  to  place 
by  what  at  that  time  was  the  electorate  of  the  kingdom, 
and  to  disregard  its  will  would  have  cut  the  ground  from 
under  the  feet  of  the  ruling  family.  .Most  modern  gov- 
ernments recognize  that  public  office  is  a  social  trust  and 
there  is  no  tendency  to  deny  its  dependence  on  the  State. 

The  Constitutional  Convention. 

From  the  earliest  period  in  American  history,  the  con- 
stitutions have  been  framed  in  some  form  of  constitutional 
convention  which  represented  the  will  of  the  people.  In 
England,  however,  although  the  Constitution  is  as  truly 
a  social  product  as  it  has  been  in  America,  the  convention 


AUTHORITY  263 

was  not  a  factor  in  the  process.  The  English  Constitution 
which,  though  in  written  form,  is  scattered  through  the 
acts  of  Witan,  Great  Council,  and  Parliament,  covering 
the  period  from  Alfred  to  the  present,  required  no  con- 
vention; since,  by  the  English  method,  the  passage  of 
a  constitutional  provision  does  not  differ  from  the  passage 
of  an  ordinary  statute.  In  this  way  the  Constitution 
is  easily  shaped  to  fit  the  changes  in  the  social  mind. 
In  the  case  of  the  German  Empire,  the  Constitution 
was  formulated  by  the  Emperial  authorities,  Bismarck 
having  a  chief  place  in  the  work,  and  accepted  by  the 
heads  of  the  various  German  States  as  they  gathered  at 
Versailles  in  187 1,  at  the  close  of  the  Franco-Prussian 
war.  The  French  Constitution  was  framed  by  the  Assem- 
bly which  was  elected  for  the  purpose  of  settling  the 
terms  of  peace  with  Germany  in  1871,  though  the  Consti- 
tution was  not  made  until  1875.  Neither  in  France,  nor 
in  Germany,  was  the  Constitution  submitted  to  the  decision 
of  the  people.  In  neither  case  were  those  who  framed 
the  Constitution  chosen  for  that  particular  duty.  Yet 
the  fact  that  it  was  acceptable  to  the  State  showed  that  it 
had  the  endorsement  of  the  social  will,  even  though 
that  endorsement  was  not  formally  expressed. 

The  Convention  which  met  in  Philadelphia  in  1787 
to  devise  a  form  of  Government  which  would  be  more 
suitable  to  the  American  State,  was  a  representative 
body,  chosen  for  the  special  task  in  hand.  According 
to  the  terms  of  their  call,  they  were  only  to  revise  the 
Articles  of  Confederation,  but  it  was  found  that  the 
social  need  could  not  be  met  without  a  radical  departure 


264  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

from  the  existing  frame  of  Government.  If  the  Com- 
monwealths were  to  be  treated  as  sovereignties,  as  they 
had  been  by  the  Articles,  the  law  would  not  be  an  expres- 
sion of  the  social  fact,  and  the  latter  end  would  not  be 
better  than  the  first.  On  the  other  hand,  if  the  Convention 
treated  the  Union  as  a  single  State,  as  the  fact  demanded, 
their  action  would  not  be  a  revision  of  the  Articles,  as 
had  been  proposed,  but  a  revolutionary  act.  It  is  to  the 
credit  of  the  Convention  that  it  took  the  course  which 
the  occasion  demanded,  even  though  illegal,  and  framed 
the  Constitution  for  a  Federal  State.  The  Convention 
departed  from  the  provisions  of  the  Articles,  which  could 
be  amended  only  by  the  consent  of  all  the  Common- 
wealths, by  declaring  that  when  the  work  of  the  Con- 
vention had  been  accepted  by  nine  of  the  Commonwealths, 
it  would  constitute  their  fundamental  law. 

It  has  been  held,  and  with  much  justice,  that  as  the 
Convention  was  a  representative  body,  chosen  for  the 
special  work  of  drafting  a  Constitution,  their  production 
might  be  accepted  as  the  expression  of  the  will  of  the 
State  without  recourse  to  an  endorsement  by  popular 
vote.  But  in  American  history  the  convention  has  seldom 
assumed  that  power.  However,  whether  the  convention 
submits  the  fruit  of  its  labor  to  the  people,  or  promuk 
gates  it  without  this  action,  does  not  affect  the  character 
of  the  Constitution  as  law.  The  Government  does  not 
institute  nor  constitute  itself.  That  is  the  work  of  the 
State. 

It  is  by  means  of  the  Constitution  that  the  State  grants 
to  the  Government  its  authority  and  the  instructions  for 


AUTHORITY  265 

its  exercise.  Thus  it  is  plain  that  the  Constitution  is 
not  a  compact.  Such  it  could  not  be  between  the  State 
and  the  Government  for  the  sufficient  reasons  that  the 
Government  is  organized  by  the  Constitution  and  also 
because  the  Government  is  but  the  expression  of  the 
social  will.  One  might  as  well  claim  that  the  child  is 
a  contracting  party  at  its  own  birth.  The  idea  that 
the  Constitution  was  a  compact  had  its  origin  in  the 
time  when  the  Government  and  people  were  looked  on  as 
two  independent  parties.  At  this  time  the  privileges 
won  by  the  citizens  were  regarded  as  concessions  by  the 
ruler,  and  reforms  were  treated  as  mutual  agreements 
between  the  people  on  one  hand  and  the  king  on  the 
other.  Indeed,  since  the  king  of  those  days  stood  for 
a  private  rather  than  a  public  interest,  there  was  much 
apparent  reason  for  looking  on  Constitutions  as  agree- 
ments between  the  governor  and  the  governed.  Also 
the  individualistic  conception  of  society  as  an  agreement 
between  the  members,  gave  the  basis  for  such  a  concep- 
tion of  the  Constitution. 

Such  an  agreement  was  made  by  a  few  passengers  in 
the  Mayflower  to  guard  against  the  dissensions  which 
seemed  on  the  point  of  breaking  out  in  the  little  com- 
pany, but  this  agreement  would  scarcely  rank  as  a  Con- 
stitution framed  by  a  State.  It  is  a  relic,  as  are  many 
of  the  preambles  of  the  first  Commonwealth  Constitu- 
tions, of  the  individualistic  philosophy  which  colored  the 
speech  of  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries,  and 
some  of  the  writings  even  yet.  Unless  the  psychological 
conception  of  the  State  is  altogether  at  fault,  the  Con- 


266  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

stitution  is  willed  by  the  State  and  is  not  at  all  a  contract 
of  partnership.  Even  Rousseau,  the  apostle  of  individ- 
ualism, held  to  the  supremacy  of  the  common  will. 

The  preamble  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
reads :  "  We  the  people  of  the  United  States,  in  order 
to  form  a  more  perfect  union,  establish  justice,  insure 
domestic  tranquility,  provide  for  the  common  defence, 
promote  the  general  welfare  and  secure  the  blessings 
of  liberty  to  ourselves  and  our  posterity,  do  ordain  and 
establish  this  Constitution  for  the  United  States  of  Amer- 
ica." This  explicitly  states  that  it  is  the  State  which 
gives  to  Government  whatever  authority  it  may  possess. 
The  articles  of  the  Constitution  provide  for  all  the  depart- 
ments of  the  Government,  in  some  cases  for  the  com- 
position and  duties  of  the  department;  in  others,  as  the 
judicial  department,  leaving  upon  Congress  the  entire 
work  of  organization.  The  Government  may  not,  except 
by  provision  of  the  Constitution,  add  to  the  departments, 
nor  to  the  functions  which  they  are  empowered  to  exer- 
cise. For  this  reason  there  is  not  found  any  place  for 
inherent  powers  in  the  Government,  since  authority  is 
delegated  to  it  by  the  Constitution.  Our  Constitution 
is  a  model  of  explicitness  in  holding  the  Government 
strictly  responsible  for  all  the  authority  which  it  is 
deputed  to  exercise. 

Much  was  made  in  one  period  of  our  history  of  implied 
powers,  but  so  far  as  these  are  present  they  were  dele- 
gated as  all  others.  Article  I,  Sec.  8,  contains  a  clause 
which  empowers  Congress  "  To  make  all  laws  which 
shall  be  necessary  and  proper  for  carrying  into  execution 


AUTHORITY  267 

the  foregoing  powers."  In  this  clause  lay  the  basis  of  the 
doctrine  of  implied  powers,  the  Federalist  Party  led  by 
Hamilton  wishing  to  give  to  Congress  a  wide  latitude 
for  legislation  under  this  provision,  the  Republicans  under 
Jefferson  insisting  upon  limiting  the  sphere  of  legislation 
to  what  was  strictly  "  necessary."  The  view  which  ob- 
tained acceptance  with  the  judiciary  held  that  authority 
for  the  action  must  be  shown  to  have  been  expressly 
granted,  but,  this  fact  being  established,  the  power  may 
be  broadly  interpreted.  This  is  an  additional  proof,  if 
any  be  needed,  that  the  Government  has  only  delegated 
authority. 

The  Constitution  also  provides  that  officials  shall  be 
chosen  for  brief  periods,  in  order  that  they  may  be  fre- 
quently reminded  that  they  are  servants  of  the  people. 
The  fear  was  prevalent  a  century  ago  that  the  Govern- 
ment would  encroach  upon  the  freedom  of  the  individual, 
and  therefore  officials  were  allowed  only  short  terms 
so  that  they  might  not  become  arrogant  in  their  use  of 
power.  It  may  now  be  questioned  if  this  idea  has  not 
been  carried  to  an  extreme  and  if  efficiency  in  some  de- 
partments might  not  be  promoted  by  longer  terms  for 
the  incumbents.  Specially  does  the  consular  service  suf- 
fer through  displacement  of  tried  men  with  the  change 
of  party  ascendency  at  Washington.  An  official  is  often 
relegated  to  private  life,  or  to  other  official  duties,  about 
the  time  when  he  has  gained  the  acquaintance  with  his 
work,  which  would  make  him  of  value  in  his  position. 
Specialists  are  needed  in  official  positions,  and  they  may 
be  had  only   at   the  price  of   premanent  employment. 


268  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

Some  attention  has  been  given  here  to  this  phase  of 
the  Constitution,  because  in  our  country  more  than  in 
any  other  has  the  social  fact  of  the  delegation  of  authority 
from  the  State  to  the  Government  been  put  in  terms 
of  law.  The  other  social  fact  which  this  one  illustrates 
is  that  the  State  receives  its  authority  from  Jesus  Christ 
and  therefore  should  make  such  recognition  of  its  divine 
King  as  the  State,  on  its  part,  requires  of  the  Government. 

4.  The   Government  Delegates   Authority    to    Officials, 
Municipalities  and  Corporations. 

In  order  that  the  Government  may  perform  its  func- 
tions, it  must  commission  deputies  to  enforce  executive 
orders  and  decisions  of  the  courts.  Without  this,  the 
federal  laws  would  become  a  dead  letter  in  many  com- 
munities which  are  not  in  sympathy  with  them.  These 
deputies  owe  their  authority  for  the  performance  of  their 
official  duty  to  the  Government,  not  to  the  State.  They 
are  not  legally  amenable  to  the  people. 

Municipalities  and  corporations  receive  their  authority 
through  charters,  which  define  their  functions  and  privi- 
leges. So  long  as  these  institutions  keep  within  the  pro- 
visions of  their  charter,  the  Government  is  under  obliga- 
tion to  give  them  protection.  This  would  seem  to  place 
the  business  corporation  in  the  same  relation  to  the  Gov- 
ernment, and  to  the  State  behind  the  Government,  as 
is  held  by  the  deputy  commissioned  for  a  special  service. 
It  is  commissioned  for  a  special  social  service.  That  this 
view  is  not  accepted  by  the  corporation  management  is 
not  a  sufficient  argument  against  its  reasonableness.    The 


AUTHORITY  269 

official  sent  out  by  the  Government  to  take  the  census, 
or  to  perform  some  other  duty,  is  generally  recognized  as 
carrying  out  a  public  trust.  Why  should  not  the  corpora- 
tion, which  has  its  duties  and  privileges  defined  in  the 
charter  which  created  it,  be  considered  as  performing, 
likewise,  a  public  service?  In  both  cases  social  powers 
are  being  used,  as  when  a  railway  company  is  able  to 
force  a  right  of  way  through  a  man's  land,  by  the  use 
of  the  State  authority  of  eminent  domain.  Without  this 
social  force  to  carry  out  the  wishes  of  the  company,  they 
could  not  enter  upon  the  land  of  any  man  who  was  un- 
willing to  grant  the  privilege.  Whenever  social  powers 
are  used  by  an  individual,  or  by  an  institution,  for  private 
ends,  it  is  recognized  as  a  criminal  proceeding.  Is  the 
corporation,  or  its  function,  of  such  a  nature  as  to  exempt 
it  from  the  general  rule?  Political  corruption  enters 
at  the  point  where  the  official  looks  on  his  position 
as  one  which  may  be  used  for  gaining  private  wealth, 
without  regard  for  the  public  weal.  Does  the  corporation 
management  become  culpable  under  like  circumstances? 
If  they  are  only  stewards  of  the  social  power  which  they 
use,  this  would  hold  true.  In  any  department  of  social 
administration  there  may  be  an  abuse  of  the  authority 
granted  when  the  recipient  fails  to  recognize  the  obliga- 
tion which  he  owes.  This  is  not  at  all  an  argument  for 
economic  socialism,  but  rather  is  it  a  suggestion  that 
if  corporations  properly  realized  their  function  there 
would  be  no  ground  for  the  socialistic  appeal. 

Every  social  function  is  carried  on  by  delegated  au- 
thority, since  authority  can  be  had  in  no  other  way.    No 


270  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

institution  has  any  inherent  powers,  or  authority.  At 
no  point  does  it  appear  that  this  delegation  and  conse- 
quent responsibility  is  questioned  except  the  authority 
which  the  State  receives  from  Jesus  Christ  and  that 
which  the  corporation  receives  from  the  Government. 
Social  philosophy  suggests  a  correction  in  the  popular 
view  at  these  two  points. 


THE  GENERAL  PRINCIPLES  GOVERNING  THE 
USE  OF  AUTHORITY 

Through  the  history  of  the  development  and  admin- 
istration of  Government,  certain  principles  may  be  traced 
which  appear  to  be  of  general  application.  In  any  Gov- 
ernment in  which  the  despotic  idea  is  uppermost,  no 
principles  need  be  sought,  since,  in  such  case,  might  is 
the  only  right;  but  in  any  Government  in  which  the 
sense  of  responsibility  is  present,  these  principles  may 
be  detected. 

i.     With  Every  Delegation  of  Authority,  a  Law  Is  Pre- 
scribed to  Govern  Its  Exercise, 
2.     When  Authority  Is  Received,  Recognition  Should 
Be  Made  of  the  Obligation  to  the  Agency  Conferring 
the  Authority. 
j.     In  the  Recognition  of  Authority  No  Intermediate 
Agencies  Should  Be  Passed  Over. 
These  principles,  which  are  worked  out  in  each  con- 
stitutional Government,  are  equally  manifest  in  the  opera- 
tion of  the  divine  rule.     Should  the  evidence  to  be  pre- 
sented bear  out  these  statements,  it  may  fairly  be  con- 
cluded that  they  are  universal  principles,  which  in  all 
cases  should  be  followed.    It  is  the  philosophical  problem 
of  our  time  to  find  the  unity  of  all  in  the  diversity  of 
all.     Along  the  line  of  these  principles  must  that  unity 
be  sought.    What  is  demanded  is  the  unity  of  the  divine 

271 


272  SOCIAL  ETHICS/ 

and  the  human,  which  will  gain  complete  unity  with  the 
conservation  of  the  divine  will  and  human  freedom. 

The  preceding  chapter  dealt  with  the  four  steps  in 
the  delegation  of  authority;  from  God  to  Jesus  Christ, 
from  Christ  to  the  State,  from  the  State  to  the  Govern- 
ment, and  from  the  Government  to  the  agencies  under 
its  control.  It  is  the  purpose  of  this  chapter  to  apply  the 
three  principles  stated  above  to  each  of  these  four  steps 
in  the  delegation  of  authority,  to  see  how  far  the  principles 
have  been  realized  in  practice,  and  also  what  is  yet  to 
be  realized  before  the  social  system  may  be  unified 
through  obedience  to  law.  As  the  last  step  in  the  trans- 
mission of  authority  is  the  one  which  finds  most  ready 
illustration  from  daily  experience,  it  may  afford  the  best 
point  of  entrance  on  the  examination. 

I.  Are  the  Three  Principles  Realized  in  the  Giving  of 
Authority  by  the  Government  to  Its  Deputies  and  to 
Chartered  Institutions? 

There  are  two  ways  in  which  a  corporation  comes  into 
existence,  either  by  a  special  grant,  or  under  a  general 
law.  Since  the  former  method  has  been  somewhat  dis- 
credited through  the  favoritism  which  may  be  practiced 
under  it,  the  latter  method  is  the  one  in  common  use. 
Under  the  general  law,  any  individual,  or  individuals, 
may  become  a  corporation  on  condition  of  complying 
with  the  law,  specifying  the  business  in  which  they  wish 
to  engage,  the  capital  invested,  the  name  to  be  used,  and 
other  particulars  which  may  serve  to  guard  the  public 
interest-    Having  thus  complied  with  the  law  laid  down 


GENERAL  PRINCIPLES  OF  AUTHORITY         273 

by  the  legislature,  the  corporation,  as  a  political  body, 
is  an  agency  of  the  Government  for  carrying  out  its 
functions.  The  corporation  having  been  authorized  is 
not  at  liberty  to  change  its  name,  its  business,  nor  to 
consolidate  with  any  other  except  by  permission  of  the 
Government.  Should  the  corporation  fail  to  keep  the 
rules  laid  down  in  its  charter  for  its  guidance,  it  is  not 
only  the  privilege  but  the  duty  of  the  Government  to 
call  the  corporation  to  account  for  its  abuse  of  powers. 

The  abuse  is  not  infrequently  in  those  who  grant  the 
authority  as  well  as  in  those  who  use  it,  since  there  is 
just  cause  for  the  charge  that  the  legislators  are  often 
the  agents  of  the  chartered  corporations,  if  not  actual 
members,  so  that  the  charters  do  not  guard  the  public 
interest.  The  people  of  Pennsylvania  will  not  soon  forget 
the  Ripper  Bill  by  which  the  streets  of  some  of  her  cities 
were  presented  to  certain  corporations  for  the  use  of 
street-car  companies,  a  gift  which  defrauded  the  people 
of  many  millions  of  the  wealth  which  had  been  socially 
created. 

These  abuses  of  the  principle,  however,  do  not  militate 
against  the  principle,  since  in  all  cases  the  Government 
lays  down  law,  bad  or  good,  for  the  conduct  of  these 
enterprises,  and  the  business  is  legitimate  only  as  the 
corporation  keeps  within  the  provisions  of  the  law.  The 
first  great  industrial  combination  of  which  we  have  any 
record  was  attempted  at  Babel  without  a  charter,  with 
the  result  that  the  undertaking  was  stopped  and  the 
company  disorganized. 

The  municipality  closely  resembles  the  corporation  iu 


274  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

its  chartered  capacity.  It  is  authorized  to  levy  taxes, 
to  contract  debts  to  a  certain  amount,  and  to  make  im- 
provement, by  the  provisions  of  the  charter.  When  it 
is  found  necessary  to  go  beyond  the  stipulations  of  the 
charter,  application  must  be  made  to  the  legislature  for 
the  privilege.  Even  when  the  legislature  grants  the  city 
streets  to  transportation  companies,  the  municipality  has 
no  remedy  at  law.  So  closely  is  the  municipality  guarded 
in  its  use  of  authority  that  it  is  not  allowed  to  void  a 
former  contract,  even  when  it  is  clear  that  public  in- 
terests would  be  profited,  provided  there  are  vested  inter- 
ests involved  in  the  old  contract. 

The  officials  acting  under  Government  authority  receive 
this  authority  in  a  commission,  or  warrant,  which  defines 
their  powers  and  duties  and,  as  long  as  they  observe  the 
conditions  of  the  commission,  they  act  with  the  whole 
power  of  the  Government.  An  accredited  representative 
of  the  American  Government  at  a  foreign  station  em- 
bodies the  authority  of  the  American  Government  in 
himself.  But  this  does  not  make  it  allowable  for  him 
to  act  at  his  own  discretion.  There  may  be  critical  emer- 
gencies when  it  is  necessary  for  him  to  act  without  any 
direct  warrant,  since  provision  for  the  case  had  not  been 
made  in  his  letter  of  instruction,  but  aside  from  such 
unusual  instances  he  is  strictly  bound  by  the  law  which 
was  given  to  him  when  empowered  to  act. 

When  the  official  does  go  beyond  his  instructions  his 
act  is  not  official,  but  is  that  of  an  unauthorized  person. 
For  such  action  the  officer  is  liable  to  prosecution.  For 
instance,  if  a  sheriff  has  a  warrant  for  searching  certain 


GENERAL  PRINCIPLES  OF  AUTHORITY         275 

premises,  and  should  make  this  the  pretext  for  a  general 
search,  he  would  be  liable  for  such  action.  The  indi- 
vidual takes  certain  obligations  upon  him  on  assuming 
the  office,  and  must  carry  them  out  or  resign,  if  he  is 
true  to  his  assumed  obligations.  In  the  days  when  the 
Fugitive  Slave  Law  was  in  force,  many  sheriffs,  who  did 
not  agree  with  the  law,  refused  to  serve  the  writs ;  but 
it  does  not  seem  that  when  the  official  has  sworn  to 
uphold  the  law  that  he  is  justified  in  disregarding  its 
provisions.  If  he  feels  conscientious  scruples  about  ad- 
ministering the  law,  it  would  seem  better  that  he  should 
not  assume  the  duties  of  the  office.  When  a  position  is 
taken  under  conditions  that  are  specified  and  known,  it  is 
not  open  to  the  incumbent  to  disregard  them.  It  is  in 
place  for  the  official  to  tender  his  resignation  if  he  feels 
that  the  work  required  of  him  is  morally  wrong.  These 
illustrations  are  enough  to  show  that  at  this  point  of  the 
delegation  of  authority,  a  law  is  given  with  it. 

In  regard  to  the  second  principle,  that  the  source  of 
authority  should  be  acknowledged,  it  is  equally  evident 
that  it  is  followed  in  the  cases  under  discussion.  The 
officials  under  the  Government,  the  municipalities,  and  the 
corporations,  all  recognize  the  agency  which  authorizes 
their  actions.  The  corporation  at  once  falls  back  upon  the 
Government  for  support  whenever  any  third  party  in- 
fringes upon  corporation  rights.  If  the  courts  decide 
that  the  acts  of  the  corporation  are  within  the  terms  of 
the  charter,  the  corporation  may  call  upon  the  police 
powers  of  the  Government  to  uphold  its  claim.  In  the 
frequent  strikes  among  the  employees  of  the  street-car 


i276  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

companies,  the  police  is  called  on  to  keep  order  on  the 
line.  Thus  the  corporation  recognizes  the  source  of  its 
authority.  Should  the  police  fail  to  give  the  corporation 
the  required  protection,  the  militia  is  called  on  to  restore 
order.  When  one  remonstrates  with  the  dealer  in  liquors 
about  carrying  on  his  trade,  he  is  apt  to  appeal  to  the 
authorization  of  his  business  by  the  Government,  as  this 
fact  is  shown  in  his  license. 

The  recognition  of  the  authority  of  the  Government 
by  the  official  is  explicitly  made  in  his  oath  of  office  and 
frequently  in  its  administration.  Before  the  political 
official  can  enter  upon  the  duties  of  his  office,  he  must 
swear  to  perform  his  official  duties  and  also  to  obey  the 
general  laws  under  which  these  instructions  are  given. 
Should  he  refuse  to  make  this  recognition  of  the  agency 
which  authorizes  the  action,  he  could  not  legally  enter  on 
any  official  work.  When  a  representative  of  our  Gov- 
ernment goes  to  another  country,  he  presents  his  commis- 
sion declaring  his  authority,  as  a  basis  of  making  any 
official  communication  to  the  foreign  court.  Aside  from 
this  commission,  which  acknowledges  the  authority  of 
the  Government  of  the  United  States,  he  is  but  as  any 
other  citizen  of  the  country.  It  is  the  acknowledgement 
of  the  source  of  his  authority  which  gives  him  his  dignity. 

When  a  travelling  agent  comes  into  a  store  to  sell 
goods  his  first  announcement  is  of  the  name  and  reputa- 
bility  of  the  firm  which  he  represents.  The  agent  may  not 
be  known  at  all,  but  if  the  company  has  good  standing  in 
the  commercial  world,  its  name  recommends  the  agent 
to  the  customer.     It  is  therefore  a  common  rule  in  busi- 


GENERAL  PRINCIPLES  OF  AUTHORITY         277 

ness,  as  in  political  affairs,  to  acknowledge  the  source 
of  authority. 

The  third  principle  previously  stated,  that  no  steps 
should  be  passed  over  in  the  recognition  of  authority, 
has  been  implicitly  followed,  except  in  the  case  of  the 
Government  official.  The  question  raised  in  regard  to  the 
official  is  whether  he  should  be  guided  by  the  law  gov- 
erning the  case  or  by  the  sentiment  of  the  community. 
It  has  been  the  acceptance  of  the  latter  alternative  as 
the  rule  of  official  conduct  that  has  caused  a  practical 
nullification  of  law  in  many  communities.  The  laws  in 
some  of  the  Commonwealths,  notably  Maine  and  Kansas, 
have  prohibited  the  saloon  within  their  jurisdiction.  In 
certain  cities  the  liquor  element  is  sufficiently  strong  to 
control  the  election  of  the  city  officials.  Now  if  the 
magistrate  were  true  to  his  oath  of  office,  true  to  the 
principles  that  are  operative  in  any  efficient  Government, 
he  would  enforce  the  existing  statutes  regardless  of  the 
local  sentiment.  Any  other  course  of  action  means  that 
the  law  shall  be  operative  only  in  those  districts  where  it 
has  the  support  of  the  local  sentiment,  so  that  each 
community  exercises  the  privilege  of  vetoing  all  legis- 
lation which  does  not  suit  the  neighborhood.  This  was 
the  principle  on  which  South  Carolina  nullified  the  law 
of  Congress  in  1832  and  forbade  its  enforcement  within 
the  Commonwealth. 

The  following  out  of  this  principle  means  the  sub- 
version of  all  Government.  The  Southern  statesmen 
proposed  only  the  sovereignty  of  each  Commonwealth, 
but  this  goes  much  farther,  making  each  neighborhood 


278  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

independent.  Further,  if  each  city  has  a  right  to  'dis- 
regard the  enactments  of  the  legislature,  may  not  the 
wards  pass  upon  the  city  ordinances?  There  are  no 
limits  to  this  idea  of  nullification,  if  once  it  is  admitted 
as  a  working  principle.  The  essentially  anarchistic  idea 
of  reducing  all  law  to  a  matter  of  local  option  needs 
no  comment. 

Now  this  result  is  a  consequence  of  failing  to  follow 
the  third  principle,  which  insists  on  recognizing  the 
agency  immediately  superior  to  the  one  using  the  author- 
ity. The  official  is  a  member,  or  a  deputy,  of  the  Gov- 
ernment, sworn  to  perform  a  certain  service ;  it  is  not 
for  him  to  hunt  after  what  the  locality  wants  in  the  case, 
since  he  is  not  responsible  to  any  authority  but  that  which 
commissioned  him.  Failing  to  enforce  the  law  according 
to  his  oath  taken  on  entering  the  public  service,  not  only 
makes  the  official  guilty  of  perjury,  but  as  well  endangers 
the  political  system  of  which  he  is  a  factor  by  violating 
one  of  the  principles  which  is  essential  to  Government. 

It  is  not  an  unusual  thing  in  municipal  elections  for 
a  candidate  to  appeal  for  the  suffrages  of  the  voters, 
on  the  understanding  that  he  will  nullify  the  law.  With 
the  exception  of  this  criminal  failure  of  duty  on  the  part 
of  the  public  officials,  the  three  principles  that  are  to  be 
observed  in  the  delegation  of  authority  are  realized 
in  the  relation  between  the  Government  and  the  agencies 
through  which  it  performs  its  functions. 
2.    Are  the  Three  Principles  Noted,  Obeyed  in  the  Giving 

of  Authority  by  the  State  to  the  Government? 

The  principle  that  a  law  is  given  when  authority  is 


GENERAL  PRINCIPLES  OF  AUTHORITY         279 

conferred,  finds  no  clearer  demonstration  than  in  the 
Constitution  which  the  American  State  lays  down  for 
the  Government.  As  has  been  already  noticed,  the  Gov- 
ernment has  no  inherent  powers;  all  that  it  has  are 
granted  by  the  State  and  are  specifically  catalogued  in 
the  Constitution.  The  framers  of  the  Constitution  had 
in  mind  the  aggressions  of  the  English  kings  upon 
popular  privileges  and  it  was  the  intention  of  the  fathers 
to  place  every  safeguard  about  individual  rights.  To  this 
end  all  the  powers  not  conferred  upon  the  Government 
by  the  Constitution  were  specifically  denied  to  it  by  that 
instrument.  Nor  was  the  legislative  department,  which 
was  most  feared,  left  with  the  legal  prohibition  only, 
for  the  Supreme  Court  was  created  to  hold  the  other 
departments  in  check.  To  one  who  has  given  the  Con- 
stitution even  a  cursory  reading,  it  will  need  no  argument 
to  show  that  when  the  State  gave  authority  to  its  Govern- 
ment, it  gave  it  under  strict  provisions  of  law. 

The  second  principle,  that  the  body  conferring  the 
authority  should  be  recognized,  is  also  realized.  The 
Constitution  is  prefaced  by  the.  statement  that  the  au- 
thority of  the  Government  rests  upon  the  State,  therefore 
every  official  who  swears  to  the  Constitution,  and  each 
one  must  take  the  oath,  acknowledges  the  authority  of 
the  State  which  gave  the  Constitution.  There  is  no 
question  in  the  United  States  about  the  Government  rec- 
ognizing the  authority  of  the  people,  the  chief  danger 
being  that  the  officials  may  become  mere  automatons 
recording  some  temporary  wave  of  sentiment.  The  fire  of 
criticism  through  which  the  political  leader  must  pass, 


28o  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

keeps  him  from  forgetting  the  authority  which  exalts 
him  and  may  pull  him  down.  So  sensitive  are  public 
men  to  criticism  that  there  has  been  an  attempt,  not 
without  success,  to  silence  the  criticism  of  the  press 
by  party  threats,  or  the  giving  of  patronage.  In  recent 
months  the  Post  Office  Department  has  seen  fit  to  ex- 
clude from  second-class  mail  privileges,  certain  papers 
which  advocate  Prohibition  or  Socialism.  Some  excuses 
were  given  in  each  case,  but  they  were  not  reasons.  The 
hope  of  a  good  administration  of  Government  lies  in 
discussion  of  public  men  and  measures  and  if  this  can  be 
silenced,  in  whatever  way,  the  consequences  would  be 
such  as  the  patriot  could  not  view  with  complacency. 

When  a  citizen  becomes  a  candidate  for  political  pre- 
ferment, he  lays  down  the  propositions,  called  his  plat- 
form, that,  under  the  Constitution  are  to  guide  his  official 
conduct.  This  platform  is  framed  with  the  purpose  of 
commending  the  candidate  to  the  electors,  as  a  man 
who  would  render  efficient  public  service,  and  the  voters 
are  left  to  choose  the  one  of  the  candidates  whose  views 
seem  best  suited  to  the  social  needs.  Thus  from  the 
beginning  of  his  candidacy  till  the  end  of  his  term  of 
office,  the  official  is  seldom  lacking  some  reminder  of 
the  fact  that  the  State  is  the  source  of  Government  au- 
thority and  he  is  frequently  called  upon  to  recognize 
this  fact. 

Coming  to  the  last  principle,  that  the  immediate  source 
of  authority  should  be  recognized,  it  is  to  be  said  that 
Government  should  not  recognize  some  more  remote 
authority  to  the  exclusion  of  the  State.    It  was  the  defect 


GENERAL  PRINCIPLES  OF  AUTHORITY         281 

in  the  theory  of  the  divine  right  of  kings,  that  the  mon- 
arch ignored  the  people  in  his  acknowledgment  of  author- 
ity, thus  leaving  the  way  open  for  a  disregard  of  the 
social  welfare.  The  Government  does  not  draw  its  au- 
thority immediately  from  God.  Government  is  the  natural 
working  out  of  the  social  nature  which  God  made  in 
man.  It  is  a  permanent  social  institution.  The  authority 
exercised  in  Government  comes  from  God  through  the 
State.  The  fact  is  that  when  any  of  these  principles 
stated  at  the  beginning  of  this  chapter  are  disregarded, 
it  brings  about  disastrous  results.  We  have  before  us 
in  the  daily  press  the  results  recorded  where  officials 
disregard  their  oath  of  office,  leaving  the  laws  without 
enforcement  to  suit  the  people  of  the  local  neighborhood. 
The  idea  of  the  Stuarts  that  they  drew  their  authority 
directly  from  God,  cost  England  a  century  of  struggle 
and  the  Stuarts  a  throne. 

J.    Are  the  Three  Principles  Observed  in  the  Delegation 
of  Authority  by  Jesus  Christ  to  the  State? 

Since  the  Bible  expressly  declares  that  all  authority  is 
given  to  Christ,  it  follows  that  all  authority  exercised 
in  social  affairs  must  come  from  Him.  Does  Christ  give 
law  when  He  confers  authority?  Some,  even  Christians, 
have  insisted  that  Jesus  Christ  does  not  rule  over  the 
whole  life,  that  part  is  not  under  His  law.  Yet,  unless 
a  man  is  made  on  the  compartment  plan,  it  is  not  possible 
to  split  his  life  into  sections.  Life  is  a  unity,  not  a 
dualism.  A  man  is  not  a  Christian  by  sections.  Thus 
when  a  man  argues  that  there  should  not  be  any  religion 


282    •  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

in  business  or  politics  his  error  is  psychological  but  no 
less  fatal.  If  religion  is  a  factor  in  life  at  all,  it  goes 
through  every  part  of  the  life.  If  there  is  no  religion  in 
politics  and  business,  there  is  none  in  the  life  at  all.  Jesus 
Christ  gives  law  to  the  whole  life.  An  individual,  or 
a  people,  may  refuse  to  obey  this  law,  but  it  is  idle  to 
claim  that  religion  dominates  the  life,  when  some  part 
of  it  is  independent  of  religious  control. 

Jesus  Christ  laid  down  the  general  principles  of  law 
at  Sinai,  or,  more  exactly,  he  stated  the  law  on  which 
society  was  constructed.  The  Moral  Law  is  the  social 
constitution  of  man,  not  given  first  at  Sinai,  but  stated  at 
Sinai.  It  was  given  when  man  was  created.  Some,  at 
least,  of  the  precepts  had,  through  experience  or  revela- 
tion, been  known  before  the  announcement  by  Moses. 
The  acceptance  of  the  Moral  Law  was  clearly  stated  as 
the  condition  on  which  the  Hebrew  State  might  law- 
fully exercise  authority,  a  condition  alike  applicable  to 
any  State,  since  the  constitution  of  man  has  not  been 
abrogated  with  the  lapse  of  time.  The  New  Testament 
is  also  a  book  of  law,  stating  a  deeper  significance  than 
had  been  understood  before.  The  Bible,  therefore,  is 
the  law  which  Jesus  Christ  gives  and  the  authority  which 
he  confers  upon  the  State  is  to  be  used  according  to 
Scriptural  directions.  It  would  be  an  inadequate  guide 
for  men  if  it  did  not  furnish  rules  for  the  whole  life. 

The  Hebrew  State  fulfilled  the  second  principle  by 
acknowiedging  the  authority  of  Jesus  Christ  When  the 
law  was  read  at  Sinai  to  the  representatives  of  the  people 
they  declared :   "  All  that  the  Lord  hath  said  will  we  do 


GENERAL  PRINCIPLES  OF  AUTHORITY         283 

and  be  obedient."  This  was  an  explicit  recognition  of 
the  law  giver.  They  were  not  able  to  live  up  to  the 
law  and  the  repeated  instances  of  national  repentance 
were  often  accompanied  by  a  renewal  of  their  recognition 
of  the  authority  of  Jehovah.  Thus  the  Hebrews  made 
an  effort  to  keep  the  second  principle  involved  in  good 
government. 

It  is  at  this  point  that  modern  States  fail  to  meet  the 
requirement.  No  modern  State  has  made  the  recognition 
of  the  authority  which  is  in  control  of  social  affairs.  The 
failure  to  follow  the  principles  involved  in  the  delegation 
of  authority  has  been  no  less  disastrous  at  this  point 
than  at  others.  In  several  of  the  European  States  the 
Constitution  declares  that  the  monarch  rules  "  by  the 
grace  of  God,"  but  this  is  quite  another  thing  than  an 
acknowledgment  that  the  divine  authority  is  recognized 
in  governmental  affairs.  Such  phraseology  lays  no  obliga- 
tion to  make  the  divine  law  the  rule  of  official  conduct. 
But,  in  addition  to  this  defect,  such  religious  feature 
fails  to  honor  God,  since  it  disregards  His  express 
teaching  that  men  much  acknowledge  God  by  acknowl- 
edging Jesus  Christ.  This  is  not  a  mere  matter  of  words. 
It  is  stated :  "  No  man  cometh  to  the  Father  but  by  me." 
"  He  that  honoreth  not  the  Son,  honoreth  not  the  Father 
which  sent  Him."  To  pass  over  Christ  in  the  confession 
of  the  source  of  authority  dishonors  God,  since  it  dis- 
regards his  word  and  act  in  giving  "  all  authority "  to 
Jesus  Christ. 

Such  conscious  omission  of  the  acceptance  of  Christ 
is  the  refusal  of  the  only  mediator  between  God  and  man. 


284  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

The  usual  reason  for  ignoring  Jesus  Christ  in  the  social 
confession  of  the  source  of  authority,  is  that  the  dominant 
social  influence  in  the  State  objects  to  the  name  of  Jesus 
while  all  classes  believe  in  some  kind  of  a  God.  The 
God  of  the  Christian  is  the  Father  of  Jesus  Christ  and 
He  can  be  pleased  only  by  the  confession  of  His  Son. 

We  are  not  dealing  with  one  who  is  deceived  by  verbal 
forms.  God  reads  the  mind  of  the  State  as  that  of  the 
individual,  and  demands  that  He  should  be  honored  in 
His  own  appointed  way.  The  cosmic  philosophy,  the 
unity  of  law,  the  teachings  of  the  Bible  are  in  cordial 
agreement  in  insisting  on  the  harmonizing  of  the  will 
of  the  State  with  the  will  which  guides  the  universe. 

4.  The  Principles  Involved  in  the  Delegation  of  Author- 
ity Are  Realized  in  the  Relation  between  Essential  God 
and  Jesus  Christ. 

The  Father  gives  law  to  the  Christ  and  acknowledg- 
ment is  loyally  made  of  its  delegation.  "  I  came  not  to 
do  mine  own  will,"  said  Jesus,  "  but  the  will  of  Him 
that  sent  me."  Many  times  in  the  ministry  of  the  Lord 
does  He  make  this  willing  confession  that  He  came  to 
do  the  Father's  will.  Hegel  wrote  that  the  State  would 
realize  its  mission  when  it  would  confess :  "  Lo !  I  come 
to  do  Thy  will  O  God." 

This  completes  the  application  of  the  three  principles 
stated  at  the  beginning  of  this  chapter,  to  the  different 
stages  in  the  delegation  of  authority.  In  nearly  every 
stage  they  are  realized  in  the  administration  of  political 
authority  and  wherever  they  are  departed  from,  social 


GENERAL  PRINCIPLES  OF  AUTHORITY         285 

damage  is  the  consequence.  At  one  point  in  particular  is 
failure  to  be  noted,  when  the  State  refuses  to  confess 
the  dependence  of  the  social  will  upon  the  will  of  Jesus 
Christ,  and  thus  interferes  with  the  cosmic  philosophy; 
of  the  divine  plan. 


THE  SOCIAL  CONFESSION  OF  CHRIST 

If  a  cosmical  unity  is  to  be.  gained,  the  social  spirit 
must  be  harmonized  with  the  divine  spirit.  The  social 
confession  of  Christ  is  the  means  to  this  end.  It  would 
seem  that  materialistic  ideas  of  the  State  have  somewhat 
hidden,  even  from  Christians,  the  proper  relationship  of 
the  State  to  the  Christ.  But  when  the  psychological  view 
of  the  State  has  had  time  to  mature  in  the  common  mind, 
so  that  it  may  clear  the  mental  atmosphere  of  the  errors 
in  the  theories  inherited  from  the  individualistic  philoso- 
phers of  the  eighteenth  century,  and  the  biologists  of  the 
nineteenth,  we  will  gain  a  correct  political  philosophy  and, 
ultimately,  a  better  political  practice.  Schlegel  teaches 
in  his  "  Philosophy  of  History  "  that  every  great  move- 
ment has  passed  through  the  stage  of  theory,  and  that 
theory  has  shaped  the  later  historical  events.  Admitting 
that  the  situation  demands  that  the  State  should  make 
an  acknowledgment  of  the  authority  of  Christ  in  the 
social  life,  as  is  required  in  the  individual  life,  it  yet 
remains  to  be  considered  what  form  this  confession  should 
take  and  where  it  should  be  made. 

i.    The  Form  of  Confession. 

It  may  fairly  be  said  that  the  particular  words  used 
in  a  social  confession  are  not  of  more  importance  than 
in  a  confession  by  the  individual.     The  essential  thing 


SOCIAL  CONFESSION  OF  CHRIST  287 

is  that  it  shall  accept  the  law  of  Christ  as  the  rule  of 
life.     It  is  necessary  that  the  statement  shall  be  free 
of  ambiguities  and,  as  it  is  to  be  a  standard  of  official 
conduct,  it  should  have  legal  precision.     It  is  not  an  ex- 
pression of  mere  sentiment,  not  simply  the  insertion  of 
some  name  or  phrase  in  the  Constitution  of  Government, 
but  the  laying  down  of  a  definite  ethical  standard  for 
legislative,   executive,   and  judicial   conduct.     As   it,  of 
necessity,  has  this  scope,  it  must  be  the  expression  of  the 
social  mind,  and  not  that  of  an  individual,  or  of  a  number 
of  individuals.    It  is  the  expression  of  a  social  obligation 
which  is  binding  on  the  social  life.     On  one  hand,  by 
making  this  confession  honestly,  the  State  comes  into  a 
right  relation  with  God;    on  the  other  hand,  it  takes 
a  right  position  in  its  relation  to  the  individual  citizen. 
God  is  so  bound  in  with  the  universe  which  He  has 
made,  that  no  part  of  the  grand  cosmic  system  can  be 
economically  operated  when  God  is  left  out  of  the  plan. 
Putting  Jesus  Christ  into  social  life  brings  about  that 
integration  of  the  State  with  God,  and  of  social  classes 
with  each  other  which  is  required  "  to  promote  the  general 
welfare." 

It  will  make  the  discussion  at  this  point  more  definite 
to  suggest  the  following  adaptation  of  the  preamble  to 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States :  "  We  the  people 
of  the  United  States,  recognizing  God  as  the  source  of 
authority,  Jesus  Christ  as  the  ruler  of  the  State,  and 
the  Bible  as  the  ethical  standard  for  all  moral  questions 
in  social  life,  .  .  .  .  do  ordain  and  establish  this 
Constitution  for  the  United  States  of  America." 


288  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

It  is  to  be  carefully  noted  that  not  all  questions  would 
come  directly  under  the  operation  of  this  amendment. 
Many  of  the  questions  with  which  the  different  depart- 
ments of  Government  have  to  deal  are  economic  simply, 
or  involve  some  legal  technicality.  In  dealing  with  such 
matters,  the  question  of  an  ethical  standard  is  of  less 
moment.  It  is  directly  concerned  with  all  questions 
where  justice  or  injustice  is  at  issue.  All  political  ques- 
tions have  a  moral  element,  but  it  is  not  always  the 
dominant  factor.  The  ethical  standard  would  have  di- 
rectly come  in  question  in  the  recent  breach  of  public 
faith  with  Cuba.  It  would  also  suggest  that  some  other 
interests  are  paramount  to  those  of  trade  in  the  Philip- 
pines. A  tariff  law  would  not,  so  directly,  be  appealed 
to  a  moral  standard. 

The  application  of  this  amendment  would  require  no 
change  whatever  in  the  form,  or  the  methods,  of  govern- 
ing. It  would  not  make  any  change  in  the  class  of  cases 
which  would  come  before  the  legislature,  or  the  courts. 
It  is  concerned  alone  with  the  ethical  standard  which 
shall  be  applied  to  those  cases.  If  any  one  holds  that 
the  present  standard  is  Christian,  he  need  expect  no 
change  at  all,  but  one  who  considers  the  general  dis- 
regard of  the  Sabbath,  the  licensing  of  different  forms 
of  vice,  will  scarcely  draw  such  a  conclusion.  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  every  individual,  and  every  institution, 
has  an  ethical  standard  and  it  is  only  a  question  of  what 
that  standard  shall  be.  Each  one  may  form  his  own 
judgment  as  to  what  ethical  standard  is  operative  in 
governmental  affairs,  but  he  will  not  doubt  that  one  exists. 


SOCIAL  CONFESSION  OF  CHRIST  289 

Whether  chosen  by  intention  or  not,  it  is  always  in 
evidence.  The  suggestion  here  is  that  the  Bible  be  taken 
as  that  standard.  No  change  is  proposed  in  political 
method.  It  would  seem  that  every  man  who  believed 
in  taking  the  Bible  as  the  standard  of  his  own  life, 
should  advocate  the  acceptance  by  the  State  of  the  same 
standard. 

Nor  would  it,  as  some  have  hastily  concluded,  interfere 
with  the  opinions  that  men  may  hold  on  religious  ques- 
tions. This  fact  is  evident  when  one  takes  time  to  con- 
sider the  kind  of  cases  which  come  before  the  courts. 
Government  does  not  deal  with  what  men  think,  but  with 
what  they  do.  Why  should  a  change  in  ethical  standard 
affect  this  matter?  Or,  as  this  book  is  written  specially 
for  Christians,  why  should  Christians  fear  to  be  judged 
by  the  Bible  standard  in  the  courts?  Why  should  the 
testing  of  legislative  enactment  by  the  teachings  of  Christ, 
endanger  individual  freedom?  An  objection  might  be 
raised  at  this  point  by  those  who  do  not  believe  in  the 
Bible,  but  it  is  difficult  to  see  the  ground  on  which  a 
believer  in  the  teachings  of  Jesus  would  enter  a  protest. 
It  would  seem  that  Christians  should  be  at  one  in  this 
matter.  Why  should  the  Bible  standard  endanger  free- 
dom, more  than  a  standard  of  materialistic  ethics,  or 
some  other  ?  Men  are  not  tried  for  their  thoughts  under 
our  system  of  Government  and  this  freedom  which  we 
have  is  due  to  the  Christianity  which  should  be  recog- 
nized. It  was  the  coming  of  Jesus  which  made  freedom 
of  thought  and  action  possible;  on  this  account  it  can 
scarcely  be  seriously  claimed  that  to  take  the  ethics  of 


29o  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

Jesus  as  the  basis  of  governmental  action  would  destroy 
the  very  thing  which  this  teaching  made  possible,  indi- 
vidual freedom. 

There  is  no  provision  under  our  system  of  government 
for  bringing  a  man  into  court  on  account  of  his  theo- 
logical opinions,  or  his  church  preferences.  The  writer, 
who  is  a  descendant  of  the  Covenanters  who  were  hunted 
to  the  death  for  their  opinion's  sake,  would  be  the  last 
to  propose  a  reinstatement  of  the  inquisition  for  opinion. 
It  is  the  surest  guard  against  such  return,  to  take  the 
ethics  of  Jesus  as  the  standard  of  social  conduct.  The 
man  who  has  any  reason  to  fear  that  his  business  interests, 
the  title  by  which  he  holds  his  property,  his  freedom 
of  speech,  would  be  disturbed  by  the  acceptance  of  the 
law  of  Christ  as  the  rule  of  life,  has  good  reason  to 
question  the  methods  of  his  business  and  the  matter  of 
his  speech.  It  would  seem  that  every  Christian,  indeed 
every  honest  man,  should  welcome  such  a  standard  in 
our  legislatures  and  our  courts. 

Government  is  continually  extending  its  functions  and 
this  process  is  likely  to  continue,  as  it  is  becoming  more 
necessary  to  guard  individual  interests  from  the  encroach- 
ment of  the  great  industrial  combinations.  Government 
function  is  also  being  extended  in  dealing  with  the  de- 
pendent and  defective  classes  of  the  population.  If  one 
will  compare  the  range  of  subjects  with  which  the  legis- 
lator deals,  with  those  with  which  he  dealt  a  century 
ago,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  character  of  Government  is 
of  growing  concern  to  the  individual.  If  the  State  be- 
comes Christian  through  confessing  the  Christ,  then  will 


SOCIAL  CONFESSION  OF  CHRIST  291 

the  Government,  with  other  social  institutions,  be  per- 
meated by  the  same  influence,  to  the  advantage  of  the 
individual.  Some  standard  of  action  the  State  has,  and 
must  have.  Would  it  not  be  to  the  advantage  of  all 
good  citizens  to  make  the  State  avowedly  Christian? 

The  proposed  amendment  falls  naturally  into  two  divi- 
sions ;  the  first  giving  honor  to  God,  the  second  concern- 
ing the  welfare  of  men.  The  first  obligation,  the  State 
owes  to  the  rightful  ruler  of  this,  and  every  other,  nation ; 
the  second  to  its  citizens  and  other  States.  There  is  an 
old  and  well  established  proposition  that  "  Man's  chief 
end  is  to  glorify  God,  and  to  enjoy  him  forever."  That 
is  the  proposition  which  this  amendment  elucidates  and 
applies.  In  the  general  scramble  for  wealth,  and  our 
conquest  by  materialistic  views,  it  might  be  well  to  recall 
that,  in  the  eternal  view  of  things,  spirit  dominates. 

There  was  a  great  trading  people  long  ago  whose 
ships  cruised  in  every  known  sea  and  their  merchant 
flag  floated  in  every  port.  They  gained  their  celebrity 
from  gathering  the  little  mussels  from  the  sea  and  mak- 
ing from  them  the  Tyrian  dye,  and  when  the  home  supply 
was  exhausted  they  sent  out  their  trading  companies  to 
procure  the  raw  material  and  extend  their  trade.  The 
Phoenicians  have  been  called  the  "  Yankees  of  the  East " 
and  in  material  gains  they  led  the  world.  Yet  beyond 
a  few  inscriptions  we  know  nothing  of  their  literature 
and,  excepting  the  genius  of  Hannibal,  there  is  scarce  a 
Phoenician  name  which  lives  in  history.  A  people  whose 
interest  centers  in  trade  does  not  make  permanent  con- 
tributions to  history ;  but  those  that  contribute  to  spiritual 


293  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

growth  leave  an  inheritance  which  neither  time  nor  change 
consigns  to  oblivion. 

No  favorable  balance  of  trade,  nor  output  of  manufac- 
tured goods,  can  balance  the  social  account  with  an 
offended  God.  "  Kiss  ye  the  Son  lest  ye  perish  from 
the  way,"  even  though  factories  multiply  and  railroads 
increase  their  tonnage.  While  the  argument  in  these 
pages  turns,  for  the  most  part,  on  the  social  benefits  to 
be  gained  by  the  social  confession  of  the  Christ,  since 
that  phase  of  the  subject  appeals  most  forcibly  to  men, 
yet  it  must  not  be  forgotten  that  the  glory  of  God  is  not 
of  less  account.  The  question  which  confronts  any  peo- 
ple with  such  opportunities  as  we  possess,  is  whether 
they  should  be  willing  to  accept  for  themselves  the  won- 
drous benefits  of  the  Saviour's  death,  while  refusing  to 
Him  the  honor  which  is  His  due. 

2,    The  Place  of  Acknowledgment, 

Neither  the  form,  nor  the  place  of  acknowledgment 
of  the  authority  of  Christ  is  of  great  account,  provided 
that  certain  conditions  are  satisfied.  This  political  con- 
fession of  faith  should  be  an  adequate  statement  of  the 
kingly  rights  of  the  Christ  over  the  State,  and  it  should 
be  so  formulated  and  placed  as  to  give  legal  sanction  to 
the  Bible  as  the  ultimate  standard  for  the  settlement 
of  moral  questions  arising  in  the  sphere  of  Government. 
It  is  to  be  a  standard  for  the  legislative,  executive,  and 
judicial  departments  in  the  determination  of  such  ques- 
tions. So  far  as  the  matter  of  place  is  concerned,  this 
confession  might  be  made  to  stand  by  itself  as  an  act 


SOCIAL  CONFESSION  OF  CHRIST  293 

of  the  State,  superior  to  the  Constitution  of  Government 
which  we  have  at  present  and  to  which  the  Constitution 
and  all  subsidiary  laws  would  have  to  conform.  The 
acknowledgment  should  be  placed  where  the  will  of  the 
State  finds  direct  expression.  The  Constitution  fulfills 
this  condition.  The  acknowledgment  is  not  an  act  of 
Government,  but  of  the  State,  and  the  Constitution  is 
the  only  law  which,  in  our  political  method,  is  made  by 
the  State.  The  social  mind  does  find  expression  through 
the  measures  on  the  statute  book,  but  indirectly  through 
the  action  of  representatives.  The  Constitution,  our 
supreme  law,  is  made  by  the  people.  It  is  a  change  in 
social  mind,  as  well  as  in  law,  that  is  sought,  therefore 
the  act  should  be  the  expression  of  the  social  mind.  The 
statutes  of  Congress  stand  in  the  name  of  Congress  and 
are  enacted  by  authority  of  Congress.  The  Constitution 
stands  in  the  name  of  the  people.  Since  it  is  the  pur- 
pose to  make  the  Bible  the  legal  standard  of  political 
action  on  moral  issues,  the  Constitution,  which  is  the 
supreme  law  for  all  departments  and  all  gradations  of 
the  Government,  would  answer  this  purpose. 

It  would  not  have  the  same  effect  to  place  such  Chris- 
tian features  in  the  Commonwealth  Constitutions,  even 
in  all  of  them.  They  are  only  local  in  jurisdiction  and 
deal  only  with  local  questions ;  but  in  the  national  Con- 
stitution the  provision  would  cover  not  only  all  moral 
questions  arising  under  the  Federal  jurisdiction,  but  as 
well  those  within  the  Commonwealths,  since  the  Federal 
Constitution  is  a  part  of  each  Commonwealth  Constitu- 
tion.   The  Federal  Constitution  is  the  political  criterion. 


2Q4  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

The  Constitution  is  a  proper  place  since  it  could  b*£ 
secured  in  that  document  only  as  the  result  of  an  earnest, 
popular  demand.  The  pertinent  question  is  sometimes 
asked,  "  Of  what  avail  to  put  such  a  statement  into  funda- 
mental law,  or  law  of  any  grade,  unless  it  is  supported  by 
the  life  behind  the  law?  Certainly  in  this  instance  it 
would  have  little  value.  It  does  not  have  much  meaning 
for  the  unbeliever  to  confess  Christ,  while  he  remains 
in  unbelief ;.  nor  would  a  similar  occurrence  in  the  social 
life  have  great  value.  It  is  true  that  law  has  a  consid- 
erable influence  on  life,  and  the  effect  that  a  high  ethical 
standard  of  law  would  have  upon  the  popular  ethics  is 
an  excellent  reason  for  insisting  on  the  acceptance  of 
the  Bible  as  a  standard  of  civic  law.  That  is  an  educa- 
tional force  the  influence  of  which  is  sorely  needed  in 
our  social  life.  But  as  a  matter  of  fact,  there  must  be 
a  change  in  the  social  mind,  a  transformation  in  the 
social  life,  before  there  can  come  this  reformation  in 
our  political  institutions. 

There  are  but  two  ways  in  which  the  recognition  of  the 
authority  of  Jesus  Christ  and  of  his  law  may  be  secured 
by  the  State.  It  is  possible  that  in  some  great  social 
revolution  the  need  for  such  a  change  would  appear  so 
pressing  that  it  would  be  brought  about  without  regard 
for  legal  forms.  This  method  would  be  taken  only  when 
the  State  had  been  so  profoundly  moved  that  the  social 
demand  set  aside  all  constitutional  methods,  a  situation 
for  which  history  affords  few  parallels.  President  Lin- 
coln, under  the  pressure  of  military  necessity,  set  aside 
legal  provisions  in  issuing  the  Emancipation  Proclama- 


SOCIAL  CONFESSION  OF  CHRIST  295 

tion  and  it  is  quite  possible  that  the  liquor  traffic  may 
receive  its  legal  quietus  under  some  such  stress  of  cir- 
cumstances. The  Reformations  in  Germany  and  Scot- 
land were  marked  by  popular  uprisings,  but  other  causes 
than  religious  fervor  entered,  to  some  extent,  into  each 
movement.  The  acceptance  of  the  law  of  Jesus  as  the 
rule  of  the  social  life  must  face  the  opposition  of  every 
vicious  influence  in  society,  a  combination  which  no 
other  movement  has  ever  had  to  meet.  If  nations  are 
"  born  in  a  day,"  such  a  moral  victory  may  be  in  the 
divine  plan. 

The  other  method  of  winning  the  acknowledgment 
of  the  authority  of  the  Christ  is  through  the  legal  meth- 
ods provided  in  the  Constitution.  In  such  case  the 
measure,  following  the  usual  course,  would  have  to  be 
sanctioned  by  Congress,  then  ratified  by  the  legislatures 
in  three-fourths  of  the  Commonwealths.  History  has 
shown  that  such  concurrence  of  different  sections  and 
classes  is  not  easily  gained,  indeed,  the  only  amendments 
made  to  the  Constitution  in  a  century  were  the  outcome 
of  a  terrible  war.  Professor  Burgess  takes  the  ground 
that  the  Constitution  has  put  such  barriers  in  the  way 
of  its  own  amendment  that  only  such  a  crisis  as  a  war 
produces  will  make  an  amendment  possible.  However 
that  may  be,  it  is  clear  that  any  amendment  must  have 
due  consideration,  before  a  sufficient  sentiment  is  created 
to  give  it  the  force  of  law.  In  neither  of  the  ways 
suggested  is  there  a  possibility  of  putting  this  proposition 
into  the  Constitution  without  a  social  regeneration  of 
the  people.    The  people  do  not  want  such  a  change  now 


296  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

and  it  will  be  only  when  the  social  mind  has  been 
brought  to  see  its  necessity  that  it  can  be  secured.  Mo- 
tives of  hypocrisy  will  never  lead  to  the  social  enthrone- 
ment of  Jesus.  In  regard  to  the  question  of  how  the 
social  confession  of  Jesus  Christ  shall  be  made,  history 
affords  scant  data,  and  prophecy  is  silent;  but  the  fact 
is  made  sure  by  the  promise  of  God. 

It  is  also  objected  that  this  could  not  be  put  into  law 
until  the  people  wanted  it,  and  that  then  it  would  not 
be  needed  as  it  would  be  the  rule  of  the  social  life  with- 
out any  enactment.  This  has  an  element  of  truth,  but 
in  its  application  would  condemn  our  whole  system  of 
law.  Laws  are  not  made  for  the  obedient,  but  for  the 
lawless  class.  We  have  laws  against  burglary,  yet  public 
sentiment  is  strong  against  burglary.  There  are  few 
forgers  in  the  community,  yet  there  are  severe  penalties 
for  signing  the  name  of  another  to  a  check.  We  would 
need  the  proposed  measure,  for  the  benefit  of  citizens, 
even  though  the  dominant  influence  in  the  social  life 
were  Christian.  So  much  for  that  phase  of  the  amend- 
ment in  which  the   interests  of  citizens   are  concerned* 

As  a  last  reason,  though  not  the  least,  this  amendment 
should  be  in  the  Constitution  because  the  State  should 
confess  its  King.  This  does  not  mean  king  of  a  part 
of  life,  with  the  whole  field  of  public  affairs  independent 
of  his  control.  Jesus  Christ  is  King  of  the  whole  of  life, 
and  in  the  Constitution,  which  declares  itself  the  supreme 
law  of  the  land,  that  fact  should  be  acknowledged. 
"  For  them  that  honor  me  I  will  honor,  and  they  thai 
despise  me  shall  be  lightly  esteemed." 


SOCIAL  CONFESSION  OF  CHRIST  297 

g.    The  Value  of  the  Amendment. 

No  plea  will  be  more  effective  with  the  Christian  than 
this,  it  honors  Jesus.  "  Though  he  was  rich,  yet  for  your 
sakes  he  became  poor,  that  ye  through  his  poverty  might 
be  rich."  There  is  no  gift,  individual  or  social,  that 
does  not  come  through  him.  Is  it  a  great  thing  for  him 
to  ask  that  his  teachings  be  taken  as  the  rule  of  public 
and  private  life  ?  It  is  sometimes  said  that  if  the  appeal 
is  taken  to  the  Bible  on  moral  questions,  it  still  in- 
volves the  difficulty  of  a  double  ethical  standard,  since 
the  Old  Testament  teaches  a  different  code  of  ethics 
than  the  New.  If  that  were  true  would  not  Jesus  have 
known  it  better  than  our  modern  critics?  He  explicitly 
declares  that  He  "  came  not  to  destroy  the  law  but 
to  fulfill."  "  Till  heaven  and  earth  pass,  one  jot  or  one 
tittle  shall  in  no  wise  pass  from  the  law,  till  all  be  ful- 
filled." Yet  these  sayings  of  Jesus  are  taken  from  the 
chapter,  Matthew  fifth,  which  critics  cite  as  an  evidence 
that  the  teachings  of  Jesus  are  not  in  accord  with  the 
Mosaic  law.  With  all  due  regard  for  the  opinions  of 
those  who  find  the  divergence  between  the  teachings 
of  Jesus  and  the  Ten  Commandments,  one  is  inclined 
to  think  that  he  who  made  the  law  knew  its  meaning 
better  than  does  the  critic.  That  some  of  the  minor 
provisions  of  the  laws  of  Moses,  given  to  Israel  on 
account  of  their  peculiar  situation,  were  allowed  to  lapse 
with  the  change  of  conditions,  is  doubtless  true.  But 
Jesus  in  his  teaching  only  brings  out  the  deeper  sig- 
nificance of  the  Ten  Commandments.  He  does  not  annul 
them.    The  Bible  is  a  unit  in  its  teachings. 


298  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

Few  peoples  have  greater  reason  for  gratitude  to  Jesus 
Christ  than  has  the  American  nation.  When  this  coun- 
try was  discovered  by  Columbus,  Europe  was  feeling  the 
first  throbs  of  the  Reformation.  Had  settlement  in  the 
New  World  been  made  at  that  time,  under  royal  patron- 
age, the  early  colonies  would  have  been  influenced  by 
the  reactionary  Catholic  party  of  Europe.  But  God  had 
planned  otherwise.  In  1492,  Spain  was  ending  a  contest 
with  the  Moors  which  had  tried  the  Spanish  power, 
and  during  the  next  century  Philip  of  Spain,  feeling 
himself  the  special  protector  of  the  Catholic  Church 
and  the  inquisition,  championed  the  cause  of  the  Pope 
against  the  rebellious  subjects  in  the  Netherlands.  Dur- 
ing eighty  years  the  contest  went  on,  demanding  its  full 
complement  of  Spanish  energy  and  treasure,  and  when 
the  struggle  ended  in  the  independence  of  the  Dutch 
Republic,  Spain  had  lost  her  power  and  her  opportunity, 
such  an  opportunity  as  comes  only  once  to  a  nation. 

During  the  century  succeeding  the  discovery  of  Amer- 
ica, France  had  no  energy  to  spare  for  colonization. 
In  the  earlier  part,  the  French  king  was  hurrying  his 
men  and  means  over  the  Alps  to  make  good  his  shadowy 
claims,  against  Spain  and  the  Empire,  to  thrones  in  Italy, 
while  the  last  half  of  the  century  witnessed  the  dis- 
traction of  the  religious  wars  which  rent  France  into 
factions.  While  the  lands  of  America  were  inviting 
settlers,  the  Guises  and  the  Bourbons  were  drenching 
the  fields  of  France  with  blood.  So  was  Europe  kept 
from  taking  possession  of  the  New  World  until  the 
Reformation  had  done  its  work,  and  when  the  settlers 


SOCIAL  CONFESSION  OF  CHRIST  299 

came  at  last,  they  were  refugees,  seeking  the  freedom 
in  the  wilderness  which  had  been  denied  on  their  hearth 
stones.  To  get  the  true  perspective  of  the  settlement 
of  America,  one  must  know  the  history  of  Europe  during 
three  centuries,  and  the  more  this  history  is  studied 
will  the  gratitude  increase  to  that  God  that  guarded  the 
embryonic  nation.  To  our  shores  came  the  Pilgrim, 
the  Puritan,  the  Huguenot,  and  the  Covenanter,  sifted 
by  despotic  hands  from  the  peoples  of  Europe  to  plant 
in  the  virgin  soil  of  the  American  forest. 

It  is  true,  though  often  forgotten,  that  the  high  re- 
ligious sentiment  was,  for  the  most  part,  north  of  the 
Hudson.  The  South  was  largely  settled  by  an  aris- 
tocracy of  English  gentlemen,  resting  upon  a  larger 
population  of  indentured  servants  and  men  whom  the 
press-gang  had  swept  from  the  streets  of  London.  In 
our  adulation  of  the  early  settlers,  it  may  not  be  left 
entirely  out  of  mind  that  the  Southern  Colonies  were, 
for  years,  a  Botany  Bay,  for  the  English  police  courts. 
Yet  the  Puritans  north  of  the  Hudson,  out  of  proportion 
to  their  numbers,  swayed  the  sentiment  of  the  Colonies. 

While  other  peoples  have  been  hampered  by  institu- 
tions which  have  outlived  their  usefulness,  we  have  had 
a  mobility  which  presented  few  restrictions.  While  it 
is  true  that  we  have  no  long  period  of  history  to  sustain 
us  by  its  memories,  we  have  no  inglorious  record  to 
forget.  Isolated  from  all  competitors  by  the  seas,  which 
have,  till  this  time,  made  us  free  from  the  supposed 
need  of  standing  armies,  whose  maintenance  crushes  the 
peasantry  of  modern  Europe  and  even  of  England  to  the 


300  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

subsistence  point,  we  have  been  left  free  to  develop 
without  these  disastrous  handicaps.  The  same  seas  which 
insure  us  freedom  from  foreign  invasion,  furnish  the 
cheapest  highway  for  communication  with  the  markets 
of  the  world.  Untold  wealth  exists  in  our  national 
resources  and  it  is  a  gift  to  the  American  people.  Shall 
this  wealth  be  used  to  win  freedom  for  men  and  to  lead 
the  world  to  a  higher  civilization,  or  shall  the  material 
forces,  the  wonder  of  the  world,  crush  the  spiritual 
to  the  earth?  Press  these  material  forces  into  the 
service  of  humanity,  make  the  chief  end  social  well-being 
instead  of  money  dividends,  and  God  would  be  mani- 
fested to  men  in  a  way  never  before  realized.  This  is 
what  it  means  to  make  the  teachings  of  Jesus  the  law 
of  the  social  life.  I  am  aware  of  the  claim  that  religion 
has  no  rightful  place  in  the  market,  but  without  the 
influence  of  religion  there  would  be  no  markets  com- 
manding a  world  traffic.  It  is  religion  that  guards  our 
lines  of  railway  and  steamship  traffic,  not  the  police  nor 
the  navies  of  the  world.  It  is  not  armed  force  which 
has  lifted  the  world  into  the  measure  of  light  which 
it  owns;  it  is  not  rifles  which  keep  it  there.  These 
methods  which  the  rule  of  Jesus  would  banish  are  the 
parasitic  growths  of  the  barbaric  ages. 

2.    It  Would  Give  a  Proper  Ethical  Standard  for  the 
Decision  of  Moral  Questions, 

We  are  often  informed  that  the  teachings  of  Jesus 
are  not  applicable  to  our  conditions;  but  certainly  con- 
ditions were  not  more  favorable  when  Jesus  walked  the 


SOCIAL  CONFESSION  OF  CHRIST  301 

roads  of  Galilee.  Yet  he  insisted  upon  their  immediate 
application  to  social  conduct.  He  did  not  give  us  spe- 
cific rules  of  conduct,  since  these  would  have  become 
obsolete  in  the  course  of  events,  but  he  laid  down  prin- 
ciples which  never  grow  antiquated.  The  disciples  con- 
sidered his  teachings  practical  then,  and  tried  to  incor- 
porate them  in  their  lives. 

To  be  guided  by  "  the  common  consensus  of  practical 
judgments,"  as  some  advise,  means  the  surrendering 
of  any  social  ideal.  The  leader  of  thought  must  be  in 
advance  of  the  common  judgment  of  men,  else  he  is 
not  a  leader.  If  a  "  common  consensus  "  is  to  be  the 
ethical  standard,  stagnation  is  the  moral  future  of  society. 
j.    It  Guards  the  Freedom  of  the  Citizen. 

While  this  is  one  of  the  chief  ends  of  the  proposed 
amendment,  it  is  at  this  very  point  that  objection  is 
usually  raised.  History  has  shown  that  the  individual 
may  not  trust  the  monarch  to  give  him  the  conditions 
of  freedom,  nor  may  he  place  his  confidence  in  aris- 
tocratic rule.  Scarcely  safer  are  his  interests  in  the 
power  of  the  crowd.  Polybius  taught  long  ago  that  it 
was,  the  tendency  of  popular  rule  to  become  mob  rule 
and  the  evidences  which  support  that  view  are  not 
wanting.  In  any  difference  which  arises  between  the 
individual  and  the  State,  the  will  of  the  State  is  a  preju- 
diced party  in  the  case.  If  a  fair  judgment  is  to  be 
rendered,  it  must  be  through  the  appeal  to  an  unpreju- 
diced code  of  law. 

This  unprejudiced  umpire  is  the  law  of  Christ  which 
works  no  injustice.     It  may  be  said  that  even  though 


302  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

the  law  of  Christ  were  the  legal  standard,  it  might  be 
so  interpreted  as  not  to  meet  the  end  in  view.  Doubt- 
less this  is  possible,  but  the  weaker  party  would  certainly 
be  in  better  case  when  appeal  is  made  to  the  teachings 
of  Jesus,  than  when  made  to  any  other  rule.  Better 
surely  is  a  good  rule  even  though  warped  in  its  inter- 
pretation, than  a  poor  rule  used  in  like  fashion.  It  is 
hard  to  see  why  any  Christian,  or  any  honest  man, 
should  fear  that  the  applications  of  the  teachings  of 
Jesus  would  restrict  his  freedom,  since  it  is  through  Jesus 
that  freedom  comes.  Whatever  may  be  true  of  the 
unbeliever,  the  Christian  should  not  fear  the  appeal  to  the 
teachings  of  the  Master. 

4.    It  Would  Win  the  Confidence  of  Other  Nations, 

The  reason  why  fortresses  bristle  along  the  frontiers 
of  the  nations,  that  spies  are  sent  to  foreign  courts,  that 
every  meeting  of  the  kings  is  jealously  observed,  is 
because  there  is  no  confidence  of  one  State  in  another. 
Nor  has  national  conduct  been  such  as  to  warrant  con- 
fidence. The  laws  between  nations  are  seldom  observed 
when  the  nation  which  suffers  the  wrong  is  not  able  to 
back  its  claim  by  force.  If  the  nations  of  Europe  would 
each  adopt  the  teachings  of  Christ  as  the  rule  of  political 
life,  there  would  follow  immediate  disarmament.  This 
is  said  with  full  knowledge  of  the  fact  that  ministers  of 
the  teachings  of  Jesus  are  not  less  ready  than  others  in 
their  justification  of  aggressive  wars,  but  it  is  to  be 
expected  that  the  social  regeneration,  which  must  precede 
the  acceptance  of  the  rule  of  the  Christ,  will  have  its 


SOCIAL  CONFESSION  OF  CHRIST  303 

influence  upon  these  who  have  misread  the  Sermon  on 
the  Mount. 

Armies  and  navies  are  mainly  the  tribute  which  the 
nations  are  paying  for  the  real,  or  fancied,  reasons  which 
they  have  given  for  distrust.  English  statesmen  argue 
that  ships  enough  should  be  constructed  for  their  navy 
that  they  may  be  able  to  fight  with  all  their  neighbors 
at  once,  which  indicates  that  there  is  something  radically 
dishonest  about  England,  or  the  neighbors  which  she 
has.  Some  of  the  American  wise  men  have  also  been 
arguing  that  the  only  safety  of  the  United  States  is  to 
build  a  navy  large  enough  to  fight  with  all  Europe, 
which  suggests  that  some  one  has  been  cheating  in  the 
game  the  nations  play.  It  may  be  allowable  to  sug- 
gest that  if  the  United  States  had  kept  faith  with  Cuba 
and  the  Philippines,  which  we  hope  it  will  even  yet  do, 
it  would  have  done  more  to  guard  our  coasts  than  all 
the  battle  ships  in  the  navy.  For  the  present  we  seem 
to  have  forfeited  the  confidence  of  the  nations. 

There  are  no  real  friendships  between  the  Governments 
of  the  world.  One  helps  another  when  it  has  a  com- 
mercial ax  to  grind,  but  it  turns  its  back  upon  it  when 
a  better  alliance  offers.  This  utter  lack  of  faith  in 
international  friendships  is  wasting  money  and  men, 
making  disastrous  inroads  on  the  scanty  earnings  of  the 
poor,  and  the  wealth  of  the  rich.  Let  any  people  profess 
to  take  the  teachings  of  Jesus  as  the  rule  of  life,  giving 
proof  of  sincerity  and  it  might  disband  its  armies,  using 
its  vessels  of  war  to  give  outings  to  the  children.  War 
is  not  the  greatest  curse  that  afflicts  mankind,  but  none 


304  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

has  less  excuse.  Let  us  honor  the  name  of  Jesus  and 
His  law  and  the  nations  will  have  no  need  to  distrust  the 
"Republic  of  the  West." 

5.    It  Would  Give  to  Us  a  Harmonious  System  of  Law. 

Human  legislation  is  out  of  joint  with  the  divine,  since 
it  is  made  with  little  consideration  of  its  agreement 
with  the  principles  of  the  Bible.  To  most  legislators  it 
might  cause  a  smile,  if  one  were  to  suggest  that  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount  had  any  connection  with  practical 
politics.  Yet  if  Christ  gives  law  to  the  world  can  it 
be  practical  to  follow  any  other  standard?  Unity  is 
the  end  of  life;  it  is  the  end  of  law.  It  can  not  be 
gained  at  any  human  level,  since  no  human  standard 
can  suit  all  men  equally,  nor  will  God  bring  his  law  to 
that  criterion.  The  social  law  must  be  brought  into 
harmony  with  the  divine  law.  When  the  social  life  and 
law  is  linked  with  the  divine  by  human  choice,  the  social 
system  will  be  "  fitly  framed  together "  and  joined  to 
the  throne  of  God. 


WHAT  CONSTITUTES  A  CHRISTIAN  STATE 

The  purpose  of  this  chapter  is  not  simply  an  academic 
discussion  of  the  Christian  State  as  an  idea.  It  is  to 
determine,  from  a  consideration  of  social  facts,  whether 
the  United  States  may  properly  be  called  a  Christian 
State.  To  the  mind  of  many  this  discussion  will  seem 
unnecessary  since,  in  common  speech,  not  only  the  United 
States,  but  most  of  the  States  of  Europe,  would  be 
classed  as  Christian.  Differences  of  opinion  exist  on  this 
question,  partly  through  the  lack,  or  the  possession,  of 
the  knowledge  of  social  facts,  partly  through  varied  inter- 
pretations of  the  facts  when  known.  But  mainly  are 
the  different  conclusions  due  to  the  failure  to  agree  as 
to  the  meaning  of  the  term  Christian.  The  subject 
is  taken  up  with  the  hope  that  a  common  interpretation 
of  facts,  and  a  common  agreement  on  the  meaning  of 
terms  may  be  reached,  in  order  that  a  common  conclusion 
may  be  drawn  at  the  close  of  the  discussion. 

An  individual,  or  an  institution,  deserves  the  name 
of  "Christian  "  when  Jesus  Christ  is  accepted  and  His 
law  made  the  rule  of  individual,  or  institutional,  life. 
Nothing  less  than  this  fulfills  the  conditions  which  Jesus 
laid  down  for  His  followers.  The  choice  of  Jesus  Christ 
as  the  ruler  of  the  life  is  consciously  made  by  the  Chris- 
tian. The  child  in  the  Christian  home  may  imbibe  the 
teachings  of  Christ;    with  the  years   of   responsibility 

305 


306  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

will  come  the  necessity  to  make  conscious  choice  of  the 
Christ  as  Lord.  One  does  not  become  a  Christian  by 
accepting  certain  maxims  of  conduct,  nor  does  man,  or 
State,  become  Christian  simply  by  being  surrounded  by 
a  nominal  Christian  civilization.  The  civilization  which 
has  been  attained  is  doubtless  due  to  the  influences  flow- 
ing from  the  life  and  death  of  Christ,  but  it  does  not 
make  one  a  Christian  to  have  shared  in  those  benefits. 
Many  a  man  who  denies  the  Christ  that  made  the  free 
offer  of  himself  for  the  redemption  of  the  individual 
and  the  social  life,  has  done  that  much. 

The  States  usually  called  Christian  are  those  who 
have  benefitted  most  by  the  work  of  Jesus  Christ.  They 
are  more  Christian  than  Mohammedan,  or  Confucian. 
So  much  is  clear  to  every  observer.  But  are  they  more 
Christian  than  infidel?  By  the  definition  offered,  the 
State  can  become  Christian  only  as  it  accepts  Jesus 
Christ  as  the  Lord  of  the  social  life.  Has  the  United 
States  done  so  much?  Has  any  other  State?  When 
we  apply  the  same  test  to  the  social  life  as  to  the  indi- 
vidual, it  does  not  seem  that  there  should  be  any  great 
divergence  among  Christians  as   to  the  answer  given. 

In  a  recent  study,  "  Political  Theories,"  the  author, 
Professor  Dunning,  passes  lightly  over  the  teachings  of 
Jesus  with  the  statement  that  his  doctrines  were  essen- 
tially unpolitical.  It  is  quite  true  that  Jesus  gave  no 
specific  instructions  to  his  disciples  on  the  political  ques- 
tions of  the  day,  for  the  very  evident  reason  that  it  was 
not  possible  for  a  resident  of  Judea,  where  the  work  of 
Jesus  was  done,  to  share  in  Roman  administration. 


WHAT  CONSTITUTES  A  CHRISTIAN  STATE     307 

Another  fact  should  be  kept  in  mind  as  accounting 
for  the  alleged  unpolitical  character  of  the  teachings 
of  Jesus.  The  functions  of  the  Roman  Government, 
at  least  so  far  as  a  province  like  Judea  was  concerned, 
were  limited  to  collecting  taxes  and  putting  down  insur- 
rections. They  did  not  provide  for  the  poor  unless  for 
the  rabble  at  Rome,  they  had  neither  schools  nor  asylums. 
The  taxes  were  farmed  to  the  highest  bidder  as  in 
Turkey  to-day.  At  the  time  when  Jesus  met  the 
problems  of  his  followers,  the  care  of  the  weak  and  the 
equalization  of  social  burdens  formed  no  part  of  Caesar's 
duties.  Yet  all  these  matters  are  dealt  with  by  Govern- 
ment at  the  present  time;  all  these  matters  were  dealt 
with  in  the  teachings  of  Jesus.  If  they  were  unpolitical 
then,  they  are  political  now.  The  Jews  spoke  the  truth 
when  in  their  passion  they  said  to  Pilate :  "  If  thou 
let  this  man  go,  thou  art  not  Caesar's  friend."  The 
enthronement  of  Christ  in  the  hearts  of  men  meant  the 
dethronement  of  Caesar  and  all  his  kind.  The  realization 
of  the  teachings  of  Jesus  meant  political  revolution  then, 
would  mean  it  now.  The  classes  to  which  Jesus  directed 
individual  care  are  now  the  wards  of  the  State.  The 
questions  with  which  He  dealt  are  frequently  met  in 
the  sphere  of  political  control  and  the  principles  He  taught 
afford  the  answer. 

If  Jesus  had  lived  in  a  country  and  in  a  time  when 
the  people  had  political  questions  to  settle  which  were 
of  moral  importance,  is  it  not  probable  that  He  would 
have  given  an  answer  as  readily  as  on  other  concerns 
of  life?     It  is  true  that  He  did  not  advocate  revolu- 


308  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

tion  against  the  Roman  as  His  countrymen  desired,  but 
His  refusal  to  do  this  was  a  political  act,  based  on 
political  principles.  The  only  writing  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament which  was  directed  to  a  locality  where  the  citizen 
could  share  in  the  duties  of  government,  was  the  letter 
to  the  Romans,  and  it  contains  a  chapter  on  the  char- 
acter of  Government.  This  letter  states  that  all  rightful 
authority  is  from  God,  and  that  the  true  principle  of 
administration  is  love. 

Jesus  taught  that  the  Kingdom  of  God  is  not  to  be 
altogether  postponed  till  a  future  life,  but  that  it  is 
a  present  social  fact.  Slowly  it  is  being  realized  on 
earth  through  the  working  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  When 
the  Kingdom  has  so  far  entered  any  State  that  the  will 
of  Christ  is  consciously  chosen  as  the  law  of  the  social 
life,  then  the  State  is  Christian.  There  is  room  for 
debate  in  deciding  when  this  condition  has  been  met, 
but  there  is  no  other  adequate  test.  This  is  the  test  which 
I  would  apply  to  our  social  order  in  seeking  an  answer 
to  the  question,  "  Is  this  a  Christian  State  ? 
There  are  two  ways  in  which  we  may  judge  the  char- 
acter of  the  State :  by  its  profession,  and  by  its  practice. 
Individual  acts  define  the  individual  character;  social 
acts  define  the  social  character.  If  the  fruit  is  good, 
so  is  the  root.  If  the  social  life  is  Christian,  it  will  appear 
in  its  outcome.  These  are  the  tests  by  practice,  and 
unless  the  profession  corresponds,  it  will  have  little  value. 
There  are  three  methods  of  social  expression:  that 
through  the  individual  lives  of  the  citizens,  through 
institutions,  and  through  the  civil  law. 


WHAT  CONSTITUTES  A  CHRISTIAN  STATE     309 

I,     The  Individual  Life. 

The  individual  life  is  in  some  degree  an  exponent  of 
the  social  character.  Not  that  the  social  life  has  full 
expression  through  one  individual,  or  even  through  all 
the  individuals  in  the  society.  Yet  it  is  a  common,  and 
not  altogether  false  idea,  that  we  can  judge  of  a  neigh- 
borhood, or  country,  by  the  resident  whom  we  meet.  We 
judge  by  the  speed  and  accuracy  of  his  work  as  to  the 
industrial  efficiency  of  the  community ;  from  the  variety 
of  his  knowledge  we  estimate  the  worth  of  the  school 
system;  from  his  conduct  we  draw  a  conclusion  as  to 
the  moral  influence  of  the  environment.  It  is,  then, 
fair  to  conclude  that  we  may  be  aided  in  deciding  our 
question  as  to  the  Christianity  of  the  State  by  the  study 
of  the  individual  citizen. 

Is  the  average  citizen  of  the  United  States  a  Christian  ? 
By  this  is  not  meant  a  nominal  Christian,  but  one  who 
fills  the  conditions  of  the  definition  by  taking  the  Christ 
as  his  Lord  and  Christ's  teachings  as  his  law.  This  is 
a  hard  question  to  settle  finally.  It  can  not  be  deter- 
mined by  the  Church  membership,  since  some  of  these 
would  not  meet  the  requirements.  The  idea  prevails 
outside  the  Church  membership  that  the  teachings  of 
Jesus,  however  good  they  may  be,  are  not  practical  in 
their  application  to  present  conditions,  and  this  con- 
clusion is  not  seldom  found  among  Church  members. 
Should  the  definition  of  the  Christian  be  wide  enough 
to  include  such  persons?  Should  one  be  classed  as  a 
Christian  who  refuses  to  accept  the  rules  of  life  which 
Jesus  taught?    There  are  various  interpretations  put  on 


310  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

the  teachings  of  Jesus  by  Christians,  according  to  their 
knowledge  of  Him,  but  it  does  not  seem  that  one  who 
declines  to  accept  these  teachings  as  a  basis  for  his 
theory  of  ethics,  deserves  to  be  called  a  Christian.  This 
is  the  case  with  a  majority  of  the  people  outside  the 
Church,  and  a  respectable  minority  inside. 

It  is  for  this  reason  that  a  conclusion  can  scarcely 
be  arrived  at  in  regard  to  the  attitude  of  the  average 
man  in  this  country  toward  Jesus  Christ,  at  least  one 
which  would  satisfy  all  parties.  The  writer  believes 
that  the  social  facts  prove  that  the  dominant  social  in- 
fluence is  unchristian.  The  weight  of  evidence  also 
seems  to  show  that  though  the  average  citizen  is  influ- 
enced by  Christianity,  he  is  not  a  Christian.  Statistics 
which  have  been  gathered  with  some  care,  show  that 
not  more  than  ten  per  cent,  of  the  young  men  in  the 
country  have  any  vital  connection  with  the  Church.  The 
percentage  is  much  larger  among  some  other  classes,  but 
it  does  not  total  half  the  population.  One  will  usually 
find,  unless  he  lives  in  an  exceptional  community,  that 
when  he  tabulates  the  Christian  members  of  the  city, 
or  town,  the  majority  is  on  the  wrong  side.  The  chief 
value  of  this  reference  to  individual  character  lies  in  the 
fact  that  it  suggests  to  each  reader  the  possibility  of 
drawing  upon  the  social  facts  in  his  neighborhood  as 
a  guide  in  making  up  his  mind  as  to  the  social  char- 
acter. If  one  has  been  a  close  observer  of  city  and 
country  life,  if  he  has  also  had  an  acquaintance  with  the 
different  sections  of  the  country,  his  opinion  would  de- 
serve consideration. 


WHAT  CONSTITUTES  A  CHRISTIAN  STATE     311 

If  observance  of  the  Sabbath  is  taken  as  a  test  of  the 
Christianity  of  the  individual,  the  crowded  cars  and 
boats  on  their  way  to  pleasure  resorts,  while  the  preacher 
talks  to  empty  pews,  afford  a  convincing  item  of  evidence. 
More  people  might  be  found  in  a  single  beer  garden  on 
the  Sabbath,  than  in  all  the  churches  of  the  ward.  These 
are  some  of  the  evidences  which  are  discouragingly 
abundant  in  most  localities. 

Social  Institutions. 

Social  institutions  rise  through  the  objectifying  of  the 
social  spirit  and  therefore  reflect  the  character  of  the 
social  life.  This  the  individual  does  not  do  completely, 
since  each  has  an  individuality  of  his  own  in  addition 
to  the  social  element  expressed  through  him.  It  is, 
therefore,  from  social  institutions  that  we  gain  the  best 
notion  of  the  character  of  the  State.  If  these  are  def- 
initely Christian,  it  is  fair  to  conclude  that  the  spirit 
which  acts  through  them  has  a  like  character;  if  they 
fail  to  meet  the  requirement,  an  opposite  verdict  must 
be  given. 

The  Church. 

It  is  to  the  Church  that  one  would  naturally  look  to  find 
the  highest  expression  of  Christian  life.  In  the  Church 
are  gathered  nearly,  if  not  quite,  all  of  those  who  have 
consciously  taken  Christ  as  Lord.  The  Church,  by  pro- 
fession, has  taken  this  stand.  It  sends  its  messengers 
through  the  world  to  call  on  individuals  and  institutions 
to  accept  the  teachings  of  Jesus.    That  the  work  of  the 


3ia  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

Church  is  done  in  an  indifferent  manner  must  be  admit- 
ted by  its  best  friends,  yet  it  is  through  the  Church,  the 
united  followers  of  the  Christ,  that  the  Spirit  of  God  is 
to  be  infused  into  the  social  spirit.  While  the  Church 
is  a  social  institution,  an  expression  of  the  functions 
of  the  State,  yet  through  the  Church  is  the  State  to 
gain  the  transfigured  life.  The  Church  life  is  to  react 
into  the  life  of  the  State,  changing  the  latter  into  its 
likeness. 

This  function  of  the  Church  is  illustrated  in  the  purpose 
of  the  civil  law.  In  idea,  if  not  in  fact,  law  is  educative. 
It  is  a  product  of  the  community  and  yet  it  does  not 
serve  its  purpose  unless  it  provides  for  advancing  social 
order  and  freedom.  Thus  while  the  Church  is  an  ex- 
pression of  the  social  life,  it  has  for  its  end  the  changing 
of  the  social  life.  There  is  a  strong  tendency  in  certain 
quarters  to  insist  on  a  dualism  between  the  life  of  the 
Church  and  that  of  other  institutions.  But  as  a  matter 
of  fact  the  character  of  the  Church  will  not  differ  re- 
motely from  that  of  other  institutions  in  the  same  society. 
The  reason  is  clear.  Some  of  the  same  people  are  in 
the  Church  and  in  the  factory,  so  that  the  conduct  of 
the  two  institutions  can  not  be  diametrically  opposed 
to  each  other.  The  preponderance  of  a  different  element 
in  the  Church  and  the  factory,  may,  however,  make  one 
dominantly  Christian  while  the  other  is  not.  But  the  two 
are  apt  to  shade  into  one  another  in  character.  Where 
two  institutions  have  the  same  membership,  they  must 
have  the  same  character. 

Men  can  not  lead  a  dual  life.    They  can  not  be  Chris- 


WHAT  CONSTITUTES  A  CHRISTIAN  STATE      313 

tians  in  the  Church  and  something  else  in  business.  If 
they  are  trying  to  follow  out  such  a  plan  the  strong 
probability  is  that  they  are  not  Christians  at  all.  Yet  it  is 
possible  for  the  Christian,  who  holds  a  controlling  posi- 
tion in  the  Church  to  have  a  subordinate  one  in  the 
corporation,  where  another  force  than  Christianity  is  in 
control.  The  practical  conclusion  is  that  while  the 
Church  can  have,  and  usually  has,  a  more  perfect  ethical 
standard  than  the  other  social  institutions  of  the  neigh- 
borhood, it  is  still  true  that  the  Church  can  rise  only 
as  it  lifts  the  others  with  it.  There  is  a  unity  in  life,  which 
strongly  inclines  all  contemporary  institutions  toward 
a  common  standard.  Yet  the  different  social  functions 
which  dominate  in  the  different  institutions  draw  about 
each  its  own  class  of  men,  so  that  while  there  is  a  common 
likeness,  each  institution  has  an  individuality  of  its  own. 
The  Church,  as  a  whole,  is  Christian.  It  has  unworthy 
members,  it  does  unworthy  things  at  times,  but  its  dom- 
inant idea  is  obedience  to  Jesus  Christ.  It  is  not  de- 
manded by  the  Church,  nor  by  the  Christ,  that  a  perfect 
life  shall  be  achieved,  in  order  that  the  term  of  Christian 
may  be  earned.  If  the  demand  took  such  form  it  would 
exclude  all  individuals,  all  institutions.  It  means  the 
sincere  acceptance  of  Jesus  Christ  as  the  Lord  of  the 
life.  This  much  deserves  to  be  said  to  prevent  a  mis- 
understanding of  what  is  meant.  It  should  be  the  aim 
of  every  lover  of  Jesus  and  of  humanity,  that  all  social 
institutions  should  be  brought  into  loyal  obedience  to  the 
authority  of  the  Lord.  This  is  the  commission  of  the 
Master  and  the  mission  of  each  disciple. 


3i4  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

The  School. 

Education  is  one  of  the  most  important  functions  in 
the  State,  properly  understood,  the  most  important.  The 
school  is  only  one  of  the  agencies  in  the  work  of  educa- 
tion, but  the  school  differs  from  the  other  agencies  em- 
ployed, in  that  it  has  no  other  function.  The  farm  and 
the  factory  train  the  child  in  industrial  methods,  the 
Church  furnishes  him  educational  ideals,  the  Govern- 
ment trains  him  in  civil  order,  the  family  gives  to  him 
the  initial  steps  in  all  these  directions.  The  school  is 
the  result  of  a  social  demand  for  an  agency  which  shall 
devote  itself  to  education  solely,  with  teachers  trained 
for  the  work.  As  both  the  individual  and  the  State  are 
spirit,  in  the  final  analysis  the  development  of  spirit  is 
the  main  aim  of  both  the  individual  and  the  State. 

Education  means  the  development  of  spirit.  This 
should  be  the  aim  of  every  teacher,  whether  in  the  Church 
or  the  home,  the  school  or  the  pressroom.  The  meaning 
of  education  is  to  lead  out  the  life.  The  imparting  of 
information  is  an  element  of  education,  but  must  not 
be  mistaken  for  it.  Information  does  not  of  necessity 
enlarge  the  life.  A  student  may  acquire  an  accurate 
knowledge  of  a  language,  he  may  be  able  to  master  dif- 
ficult problems  in  mathematics,  and  have  no  broader  sym- 
pathies than  before  these  subjects  were  studied.  He  is 
informed;  not  educated.  It  has  been  charged  that  the 
atmosphere  of  a  University  is  too  frequently  heedless  of 
the  life  movements  going  on  in  the  world  about  it.  That 
can  have  no  meaning  other  than  this :  it  is  imparting  in- 
formation instead  of  educating. 


WHAT  CONSTITUTES  A  CHRISTIAN  STATE     315 

When  a  convict  was  being  enrolled  at  Sing  Sing  prison 
he  said  to  his  jailor:  "I  speak  seven  languages."  The 
jailor  answered  that  they  had  only  one  there,  and  but 
little  of  that.  The  man  had  been  informed,  but  not 
educated.  Men  whose  lives  are  "  led  out "  do  not  go  to 
prison.  Our  prisons  are  not  filled,  for  the  most  part, 
with  the  ignorant  class.  There  are  the  men  who  know 
how  to  forge  a  name,  to  raise  a  check,  to  falsify  an  ac- 
count. The  untrained  criminal  may  steal  a  horse,  or  run 
off  with  your  purse,  but  he  is  not  capable  of  the  fine  art 
which  marks  the  accomplished  rascal. 

The  ruffian  who  snatches  your  watch,  with  training  in 
the  schools  might  loot  a  bank.  It  is  possible  to  cram 
a  student  with  all  the  curriculum  from  the  multiplication 
table  to  metaphysics,  and  leave  him  with  scarcely  wider 
vision  of  the  world's  needs,  of  the  struggling  life  about 
him.  Indeed,  it  may  even  give  him  a  pride  of  knowl- 
edge which  makes  him  more  unsocial  than  the  man  who 
digs  by  the  roadside  and  murders  his  English.  At  some 
time  we  may  outlive  the  cramming  process  which  is  fre- 
quently certificated  by  a  degree  as  an  education.  It  may 
be  too  soon  to  tell  what  changes  in  studies,  and  specially 
in  method,  are  needed  to  make  our  educational  institu- 
tions what  they  ought  to  be,  in  order  that  they  may  have 
their  proper  influence  upon  the  life  which  they  develop. 

Education  is  not  putting  something  in,  unless  as  the 
pump  is  primed  to  draw  something  out.  The  mind  is 
not  to  be  filled,  but  expanded.  Jesus  was  the  great  teacher, 
and  He  drew  His  lessons  from  all  that  which  He  saw 
about  Him.    He  felt  with  the  ravens  and  the  sparrows; 


316  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

He  sympathized  with  the  sower;  He  gloried  in  the  lilies 
of  the  field.  His  life  went  out  to  all  these  things,  and, 
more  than  to  these,  it  opened  new  visions  to  the  needy 
who  crowded  His  steps.  Emerson  said  somewhere,  "  Na- 
ture hath  no  secrets  from  the  sympathetic  mind."  It  is 
a  closed  book  to  the  man  who  brings  only  information 
in  his  quest.  Jesus  said :  "  He  that  saveth  his  life  shall 
lose  it."  That  doctrine  is  quite  as  applicable  in  the  school 
as  in  the  Church.  It  is  excellent  pedagogical  doctrine. 
The  man  who  saves  his  life  is  not  led  out,  not  educated. 
Jesus  taught  His  disciples  that  they  should  become 
universal.  Their  lives  were  to  be  broad  enough  to  touch 
every  individual,  and  class,  and  race.  He  does  not  cram 
their  lives,  but  He  draws  them  out  till  the  simple  peasant 
sees  visions  which  philosophers  are  denied.  The  Jews 
said  of  the  Teacher :  "  How  hath  this  man  letters,  having 
never  learned  ?  "  Such  was  the  judgment  of  the  schools 
on  Him  who  knew  all  things,  though  He  did  not  patter 
over  the  dry  matter  of  the  classrooms  of  the  day.  It  is 
the  Spirit  which  leads  men  out  into  the  broader  life,  and 
the  Bible  is  the  text-book  which  He  uses.  Whatever 
of  expansive  influence  there  may  be  in  other  teachers 
and  texts  has  its  origin  in  this  Teacher  and  this  text. 
Cram  into  a  mind  all  possible  knowlege,  leave  it  un' 
touched  by  this  vital  influence,  and  the  life  will  remain 
narrow  and  unprofitable.  This  is  a  fact  which  few  thought- 
ful Christians  will  question.  It  is  not  intended  to  enter  any 
charge  against  the  present  curriculum  of  the  schools  by 
this  writing,  though  such  an  indictment  might  possibly 
be  supported  by  a  fair  amount  of  evidence.     What  is 


WHAT  CONSTITUTES  A  CHRISTIAN  STATE     317 

asserted  is  that  these  studies  by  themselves  will  not 
furnish  an  education. 

Christianity  is  the  expansive  influence  in  life,  so  far 
as  such  influence  is  present.  We  do  not  often  try  to 
teach  science  without  a  text,  or  history  without  a  refer- 
ence book.  The  Bible  is  the  text  of  Christianity.  It  is 
the  book  beyond  all  others  which  leads  out  the  life  into 
broader  endeavor.  That  is  to  say,  the  Bible  is  the  best 
book  for  educating  the  life.  By  what  right  may  it  be 
excluded  from  the  curriculum  of  the  school  which  has 
education  for  its  sole  function?  The  situation  calls  for 
something  more  than  a  cursory  reading  of  a  few  verses 
in  the  morning.  School  books  are  not  studied  in  that 
way.  The  Bible  deserves  at  least  the  place  which  it  once 
held  in  the  schools,  when  it  furnished  the  reading  lesson 
for  the  child. 

We  would  be  reluctant  to  allow  the  name  of  scientific 
to  a  school  which  had  no  place  for  a  scientific  text;  we 
can  not  be  less  reluctant  to  apply  the  name  of  Christian 
to  the  school  which  does  not  include  the  accredited  text 
of  Christianity  as  one  of  the  studies  in  its  curriculum. 
Not  only  does  the  exclusion  of  the  Bible  preclude  a 
rounded  development  of  the  student,  but  it  fails  to  keep 
before  the  mind  of  student  and  teacher  the  very  principles 
on  which  a  real  education  rests,  and  according  to  which 
it  must  advance.  This  demand  for  the  Bible  as  a  reading 
book  in  the  classes,  at  the  very  time  when  it  is  having 
to  contest  the  place  of  a  morning  exercise,  may  seem 
extreme.  But  does  the  situation  admit  of  anything  less? 
Education  means  the  leading  out  of  life;  the  Bible  is 


31S  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

the  book  that  shows  the  way.  Would  any  Christian  edu- 
cator question  either  of  these  propositions?  Does  not 
the  conclusion  follow  that  the  Bible  should  have  a  place 
in  the  curriculum  of  the  school? 

It  has  not  that  place.  In  many  localities  it  is  not  al- 
lowed to  be  read,  even  without  comment.  Has  the  school 
any  sufficient  claim  to  the  name  of  Christian  under  such 
conditions?  It  is  a  fact  of  large  significance  that  the 
teacher  is  apt  to  be  a  Christian;  it  is  also  true  that  he 
may  bring  his  Christianity  to  bear  in  many  ways  upon 
the  lives  which  he  is  training.  But  no  one  would  claim 
successfully  that  the  school  of  the  present  day  aims  to 
teach  the  life  of  Jesus  as  truly  as  that  of  Washington. 
Why  should  it  not? 

It  is  said,  though  most  frequently  contrary  to  the  evi- 
dence, that  there  are  other  places  where  the  child  may 
learn  these  things,  if  they  are  necessary.  But  admitting 
this  for  the  sake  of  argument,  it  has  no  particular  bearing 
on  the  case.  It  is  the  function  of  the  school  to  educate, 
and  if  it  does  not  provide  conditions  for  developing  a 
rounded  life,  it  fails  of  its  chief  end. 

In  spite  of  the  fact  that  instruction  in  the  Bible  was 
the  chief  reason  for  the  establishing  of  the  common  school 
after  the  Reformation ;  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  most  of 
the  teachers  in  the  primary  schools  are  Christian,  it  seems 
necessary  to  conclude  that  since  the  teaching  of  the  Bible 
is  not  allowed  in  the  schools,  they  are  not  taking  the 
teachings  of  Jesus  as  the  law  of  life.  If  this  is  the  law 
of  school  life,  why  should  it  not  be  taught?  If  it  is  not 
taken  as  the  rule  of  life,  the  school  is  not  Christian. 


WHAT  CONSTITUTES  A  CHRISTIAN  STATE     319 

This  defect  is  much  more  marked  in  the  higher  grades 
of  school  work.  In  our  Universities  Jesus  is  not  ac- 
cepted as  more  authoritative  in  His  teachings  than  Kant. 
The  Lord  is  treated  as  one  among  other  philosophers. 
As  an  evidence  that  this  is  a  common  indictment  against 
such  institutions,  one  need  only  refer  to  the  fact  that  the 
different  Christian  Churches  have  thought  it  necessary 
to  establish  denominational  schools  in  which  a  rounded 
education  shall  be  given.  In  appliances  and  opportunities 
for  research  they  are  usually  inferior  to  the  institutions 
which  can  boast  of  larger  support,  but  this  defect  in 
equipment  is  endured  by  many  students  rather  than  ac- 
cept an  education  on  a  materialistic  basis.  If  our  Com- 
monwealth Universities  were  Christian,  the  denomina- 
tional school  would  have  difficulty  in  justifying  its  ex- 
istence. 

The  Saloon. 

The  Church  and  the  school  represent  the  best  elements 
in  the  social  spirit.  Yet  if  we  are  to  pass  judgment  upon 
the  character  of  the  social  spirit,  it  is  necessary  to  include 
the  extremes  of  good  and  bad  in  the  survey.  The  saloon 
may  fairly  be  classed  as  a  modern  social  institution,  since 
it  evidently  expresses  one  phase  of  the  social  life.  It 
is  not  one  which  arises  from  the  attempt  of  men  to  sat- 
isfy legitimate  wants,  but  is  demanded  by  a  perverted 
sense.  The  patron  of  the  saloon  insists  that  it  is  neces- 
sary to  the  expression  of  his  life,  and  until  he  is  convinced 
to  the  contrary  the  saloon  defines  his  character.  So  while 
the  saloon  holds  the  most  prominent  positions  on  our 


320  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

streets,  must  it  be  treated  as  an  expression  of  social  char- 
acter. 

The  Church  and  the  school  are  natural  antagonists  of 
the  saloon.  This  is  legally  recognized  by  the  provision 
in  the  laws  of  many  localities  that  the  saloon  may  not 
be  licensed  within  a  certain  distance  of  the  school  or  the 
Church.  This  amounts  to^an  admission  that  they  do  not 
represent  the  same  social  interests.  They  stand  for  dif- 
ferent phases  of  life,  yet  each  meets  a  social  demand. 

No  attempt  will  be  made  in  this  place  to  show  the  evil 
effects  of  the  saloon  and  its  adjuncts,  the  brothel  and 
the  gambling  room,  upon  society.  The  facts  are  before 
the  world,  and  each  man  must  make  up  his  own  de- 
cision from  them,  but  it  is  the  conviction  of  the  writer 
that  the  influence  of  the  saloon  is  more  pernicious  than 
any  other  in  modern  life.  Its  alleged  social  features  give 
it  the  greater  possibilities  for  social  damage. 

Yet  there  is  probably  no  other  institution  which  wields 
greater  social  power  than  the  saloon.  The  political  par- 
ties do  not  dare  to  antagonize  the  liquor  power.  The 
candidate  may  be  doubtful  in  regard  to  any  other  ques- 
tion of  the  day,  but  no  Congressman  can  be  elected 
who  declares  his  open  hostility  to  the  saloon.  The  liquor 
interest  dictates  the  main  part  of  the  editorial  utterances 
on  matters  relating  to  temperance,  and  its  influence  is 
not  absent  from  the  assembly  and  the  pulpit. 

No  other  social  institution  is  so  arrogant  in  its  self- 
assertion  as  that  which  represents  the  saloon.  If  the 
social  spirit  were  Christian,  would  it  find  such  dominant 
expression  through  the  saloon  and  its  accompaniments? 


WHAT  CONSTITUTES  A  CHRISTIAN  STATE     321 

More  than  this,  would  the  saloon  be  able  to  exert  such 
a  controlling  influence  over  other  institutions? 

It  is  an  open  fact  that  the  Government  in  this  country- 
is  dominated  by  saloon  interests.  The  liquor  power  met 
with  some  reverse  in  the  abolition  by  law  of  the  beer 
canteen  in  the  army,  but  it  is  being  strengthened  at  other 
points.  Never  in  the  history  of  the  country  was  this 
institution  more  influential  in  high  places  than  now.  Few 
are  the  newspapers  which  refuse  to  carry  liquor  adver- 
tisements, and  fewer  still  the  politicians  who  would  ven- 
ture to  offend  this  oligarchy  by  turning  down  their  glasses 
at  a  public  banquet.  Could  such  an  institution  dominate 
social  action  in  a  Christian  State  in  this  present  time? 
Lazv  as  the  Expression  of  the  Social  Spirit. 

The  history  of  certain  periods  is  mainly  constructed 
on  the  belief  that  the  laws  belonging  to  any  era  express 
the  ideas  of  the  time.  When  one  takes  up  the  Roman 
code,  and  finds  what  actions  were  forbidden,  he  concludes 
that  these  actions  were  so  far  prevalent  as  to  call  for 
social  control,  and  also  that  they  were  considered  harm- 
ful to  the  State.  When  we  find  in  certain  periods  of  the 
Middle  Ages  that  laws  were  passed  against  the  excesses 
of  the  clergy  we  make  the  inference  that  reformation 
was  needed  in  the  Church.  In  some  cases  these  scraps 
of  legislation  are  about  all  the  records  that  are  obtain- 
able, and  from  these  the  historian  constructs  his  society 
as  the  scientist  builds  an  animal  from  the  bone  which 
he  discovers.  In  our  age,  when  the  records  are  so  com- 
plete, it  is  not  so  necessary  to  get  our  ideas  of  the  char- 
acter of  society  from  the  laws  upon  the  statute  books, 


&*  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

but  it  is  true  now,  as  long  ago,  that  the  laws  of  any 
age  are  a  fair  expression  of  its  life.  They  reflect  with 
a  fair  degree  of  exactness  the  morality  of  the  people.  In 
our  political  system  the  fundamental  law,  upon  which 
all  legislation  rests,  is  found  in  certain  documents  known 
as  Constitutions.  For  this  reason  it  will  not  be  necessary 
to  examine  the  secondary  laws,  since  they  are  but  the 
applications  of  the  principles  of  the  fundamental  law. 
The  Constitutions  are  made  by  the  people,  and  from 
their  character  we  may  with  a  good  degree  of  certainty 
fix  upon  the  character  of  the  life  which  forms  them,  thus 
aiding  in  the  determination  of  the  question  whether  this 
is  a  Christian  State.  These  fundamental  laws  may  be 
treated  in  the  order  of  their  enactment  and  also  of  their 
importance.  They  may  be  classed  under  the  heads  of 
Charters  and  Colonial  Constitutions,  Commonwealth  Con- 
stitutions, and  Federal  Constitution. 

I,  Colonial  Charters  and  Constitutions : 

For  two  reasons  the  charters  are  not  of  the  first 
importance  in  determining  the  present  character  of  the 
American  State ;  first,  they  were  issued  nearly  three  hun- 
dred years  ago,  and,  second,  they  were  neither  framed 
nor  adopted  by  the  colonists  themselves.  In  all  cases 
they  were  esteemed  a  grant  of  privileges  from  the  king, 
which  might  be  revoked  at  his  sovereign  pleasure.  They 
can  not,  therefore,  stand  on  a  par  with  the  Constitutions 
as  expressions  of  the  social  life.  Some  of  the  Charters, 
notably  that  of  Rhode  Island,  expressed  the  ideas  of 
the  dominant  spirit  in  the  Colony,  but  not  every  settle- 


WHAT  CONSTITUTES  A  CHRISTIAN  STATE     323 

ment  had  Roger  Williams  to  plead  its  case.  For  the 
most  part,  the  men  who  had  to  do  with  framing  the 
Charter  were  not  residents  of  the  settlement  to  which 
the  document  related. 

Whatever  may  be  thought  of  the  expressions,  religious 
or  otherwise,  which  are  found  in  the  Charters,  it  may 
be  said  in  the  words  of  Lord  Beaconsfield,  when  some- 
one accused  him  of  being  inconsistent  with  a  former  ut- 
terance :  "  A  great  many  things  have  happened  since 
then."  The  intervening  centuries,  especially  the  one 
which  has  just  closed,  have  been  marked  by  an  immense 
influx  of  settlers  with  diverse  beliefs  and  practices.  For 
better  or  for  worse,  these  have  exerted  no  little  influ- 
ence upon  the  social  character.  Scarcely  may  it  be  said 
that  one-half  our  present  population  is  made  up  from 
the  descendants  of  those  who  came  to  this  country  before 
1820.  In  1775  Bancroft  thought  that  there  was  about 
one-fifth  of  the  population  which  was  not  English;  in 
1890  one-third  of  the  population  was  either  of  foreign 
birth,  or  had  one  or  both  parents  born  abroad.  For 
these  and  other  reasons,  the  statements  of  the  Charters 
can  furnish  no  more  than  an  inference  as  to  the  present 
social  character. 

The  point  in  the  Charters  with  which  this  chapter  is 
specially  concerned  is  the  matter  of  religious  features. 
In  this  respect  one  does  not  expect  very  much  from  the 
Stuarts  of  England,  therefore  is  in  less  danger  of  being 
disappointed  at  the  meagreness  of  what  he  finds.  One 
expression  in  common  use  in  these  royal  documents  is, 
that  the  king  held  his  position  "  by  the  Grace  of  God," 


324  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

which  referred  much  less  to  his  dependence  on  God  than 
to  his  independence  of  the  English  people. 

Another  religious  feature  which  received  more  atten- 
tion in  the  Charters  than  in  colonial  practice,  was  the 
reference  to  the  conversion  of  the  Indians.  Judging  by 
the  wording  of  the  Charters,  this  purpose  was  a  leading 
motive  in  organizing  the  colonial  trading  companies.  In 
the  Virginia  Charter,  given  by  the  gracious  will  of  James 
Stuart,  in  1606,  article  third  reads :  "  We  greatly  com- 
mending, and  graciously  accepting  of,  their  Desires  to 
the  Furtherance  of  so  noble  a  Work,  which  may,  by  the 
Providence  of  God,  hereafter  tend  to  the  Glory  of  his 
Divine  Majestie,  in  propagating  of  the  Christian  Religion 
to  such  People,  as  yet  live  in  Darkness  and  miserable 
Ignorance  of  the  true  Knowledge  and  Worship  of  God, 
and  may  in  time  bring  the  Infidels  and  Savages,  living 
in  these  parts,  to  human  Civility,  and  to  a  settled  and 
quiet  Government." 

In  the  Second  Virginia  Charter,  given  by  the  same 
gracious  hand  in  1609,  we  find  a  declaration  of  the  in- 
tention, "  by  the  assistance  of  Almighty  God  to  prose- 
cute the  same  (enterprise)  to  a  happy  End."  The  Patent 
for  the  Council  of  New  England  differs  only  in  details 
from  the  expressions  already  cited.  In  this  document 
the  king  refers  to  the  fact  that  ,"  within  these  last  Yeares 
there  hath  raged  a  wonderfull  Plague  together  with 
many  Slaughters  and  Murders,  committed  among  the 
Savages,"  inhabiting  the  district  of  Massachusetts.  Pie 
accordingly  thanks  God  that  this  fact  of  the  decimation 
of  the  Indian  tribes  had  been  hid  from  other  kings  so 


WHAT  CONSTITUTES  A  CHRISTIAN  STATE     32S 

that  the  English  might  get  the  land..  "  We  in  our  Judg- 
ment are  persuaded  and  satisfied  that  the  appointed  Time 
is  come  in  which  Almighty  God  in  his  great  Goodness 
and  Bountie  toward  Us  and  our  People,  hath  thought  fit 
and  determined  that  those  large  and  goodly  Territoryes  " 
should  be  taken  by  such  of  the  subjects  of  King  James 
as  should  be  conducted  thither.  This  opening  for  a 
trading  company  leads  him  to  say  further :  "  In  Con- 
templacion  and  serious  Consideracion  whereof,  We  have 
thought  it  fitt  according  to  our  Kingly  Duty,  soe  much  as 
in  Us  lyeth,  to  second  and  follow  God's  sacred  Will" — 
"  which  tendeth  to  the  reducing  and  Conversion  of  such 
Savages  as  remain  wandering  in  Desolacion  and  Dis- 
tress, to  Civil  Society  and  Christian  Religion,  to  the 
Inlargement  of  our  own  Dominions."  This  faculty  of 
combining  the  conversion  of  the  heathen  with  the  interests 
of  trade  has  such  a  smack  of  modern  ethics  that  one  feels 
that  history  is  repeating  itself. 

It  was  not  the  thought  of  either  king  or  Parliament 
that  they  were  laying  the  legal  foundations  of  a  future 
State.  It  was  the  thought  of  the  time  that  they  were 
commissioning  a  trading  organization,  such  as  the  Hud- 
son's Bay  Company,  which  monopolized  the  fur  trade 
of  the  Northwest,  or  the  East  India  Company,  which 
looted  the  treasures  of  the  native  princes  of  India.  With 
this  fact  in  mind,  it  may  seem  strange  to  us  that  religious 
features  appear  at  all. 

It  is  to  be  noticed,  however,  that  none  of  these  re- 
ligious acknowledgments  make  the  authority  of  Christ 
and  His  law  paramount  in  the  conduct  of  the  enterprise. 


326  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

This  idea  may  have  been  in  the  mind  of  some  of  the 
promoters  of  the  colonies ;  it  may  have  been  in  the  mind 
of  the  settlers,  but  it  was  not  written  in  the  Charters. 
They  confess  the  being,  the  goodness,  and  the  general 
control  of  God  in  providence,  but  no  single  Charter  pro- 
fesses to  take  the  law  of  Jesus  Christ  as  the  rule  of  life. 
The  conclusion  follows,  therefore,  that  the  Charters,  even 
when  we  pass  over  the  fact  that  they  were  given  two 
hundred  and  fifty  years  ago  by  a  foreigner,  do  not  give 
evidence  that  the  State  is  Christian.  To  have  Christian 
features  and  to  be  Christian  are  not  identical  propositions. 

The  Fundamental  Orders  of  Connecticut. 

It  is  not  in  the  Charters,  given  by  an  English  king, 
but  in  the  Colonial  Constitutions,  framed  before  the  middle 
of  the  seventeenth  century,  that  we  find  the  clearest  ac- 
knowledgment, that  American  history  furnishes,  of  the 
supremacy  of  God  in  civil  affairs.  The  Fundamental 
Orders  of  Connecticut,  framed  for  the  government  of 
the  neighboring  towns  of  Hartford,  Windsor,  and  Weath- 
ersfield,  was  the  first  written  Constitution  which  any 
community  in  America  made  for  itself.  In  this  respect 
it  was  unlike  the  royal  Charters,  since  it  was  an  expres- 
sion of  the  life  of  the  community.  "  Well  knowing," 
reads  this  Constitution,  "where  a  people  are  gathered 
together,  the  Word  of  God  requires  that  to  mayntayn  the 
peace  and  union  of  such  a  people,  there  should  be  an 
orderly  and  decent  Government  established  according  to 
God,  to  order  and  dispose  of  the  affayres  at  all  seasons 
as  occasion  shall  require."     For  the  instruction  of  the 


WHAT  CONSTITUTES  A  CHRISTIAN  STATE     327 

governor  and  his  assistants  it  was  ordered  that,  "  being 
chosen  and  sworne  according  to  an  oath  recorded  for 
that  purpose  they  shall  have  power  to  administer  justice 
according  to  the  Lawes  here  established,  and  for  want 
thereof  according  to  the  rule  of  the  Word  of  God."  Thus 
did  these  early  settlers  accept  the  law  of  God  as  the  rule 
of  conduct  in  political  affairs. 

The  Fundamental  Articles  of  New  Haven. 

This  Constitution  was  written,  in  the  same  year  as 
that  framed  for  the  Hartford  people,  by  the  burgesses 
of  New  Haven.  Like  the  men  in  the  Connecticut  Valley, 
these  settlers  on  the  shore  of  the  Sound  were  refugees 
not  only  from  political  and  ecclesiastical  oppression  in 
England,  but  from  unsatisfactory  conditions  in  the  older 
Colonies  about  Massachusetts  Bay.  It  was  to  set  up  a 
Scriptural  form  of  Government  that  they  had  pushed 
so  far  into  the  wilderness,  and  they  do  thorough  work. 
In  June  of  1639  tnev  come  together  "  to  consult  about 
settling  civill  affairs  according  to  God."  This  New 
Haven  document  had  its  principles  stated  in  the  form 
of  queries  to  which  the  people  assembled  gave  assent 
or  expressed  disapproval  after  discussion.  One  of  the 
queries  reads :  "  Whether  these  Scriptures  doe  hold  forth 
a  perfect  rule  for  the  direction  and  government  of  all 
men  in  all  duties  which  they  are  to  perform  to  God  and 
men,  as  well  in  the  government  of  famylyes  and  com- 
monwealths as  in  matters  of  the  church."  This  was 
twice  read  and  assented  to  by  all  present. 

These   popular   Constitutions   were   set   aside  by  the 


328  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

Charter  of  Connecticut  which  was  granted  by  Charles 
Second  in  1662  to  certain  "  of  our  loveing  Subjects,"  and 
the  acknowledgment  made  by  these  little  companies  of 
earnest  men,  of  the  divine  authority  in  political  affairs, 
has  found  no  parallel  in  the  official  papers  which  have 
been  issued  in  the  centuries  since. 

One  other  document  of  this  period  deserves  notice,  less 
because  of  the  matter  in  it  than  because  of  the  circum- 
stances connected  with  its  issue.  This  was  the  May- 
flower Compact,  drawn  up  and  signed  in  the  cabin  of 
that  vessel,  previous  to  the  landing  in  1620.  It  was 
intended  less  as  a  basis  for  any  general  frame  of  Govern- 
ment than  to  hold  in  check  certain  disorderly  members 
of  the  party,  who  had  declared  that  on  landing  "  they 
would  use  their  own  liberty,"  since  the  settlement  was 
north  of  the  territory  over  which  the  Virginia  Company, 
from  which  they  held  their  patent,  had  jurisdiction. 
Within  the  lands  of  that  Company  they  admitted  the 
force  of  its  rules,  but  outside  its  boundaries  they  wished 
to  be  independent  of  control.  The  Compact  reads :  "  In 
the  name  of  God,  Amen,"  and  further  states  that  "  for 
the  glorie  of  God,  and  advancement  of  the  Christian 
faith,  and  honour  of  our  king  and  countrie,"  they  had 
undertaken  to  plant  a  colony  in  Northern  Virginia. 

The  Puritan  Not  the  Typical  American. 

These  are  the  expressions  in  law  of  the  ideas  of  the 
Pilgrims  and  the  Puritans  of  New  England  in  an  age 
when  persecution  had  heated  their  lives  above  the  moral 
temperature  of  the  materialistic  formulas  of  later  date. 


WHAT  CONSTITUTES  A  CHRISTIAN  STATE     326 

But  it  is  sometimes  necessary  to  call  to  mind  that  these 
expressions  are  not  typical  of  what  might  be  expected 
from  the  Kennebec  to  the  Savannah.  South  of  the  Hud- 
son they  read  their  Bibles  quite  differently,  if  they  read 
them  at  all.  The  moral  atmosphere  suffered  a  marked 
change  when  one  left  the  Connecticut  River  behind  him 
on  his  way  through  the  Middle  Colonies.  The  Puritan 
population  was  of  that  from  which  Cromwell  constructed 
his  famous  "  Ironsides,"  with  a  larger  number  of  Uni- 
versity men  than  could  be  gotten  in  the  same  population 
in  an  English  county. 

The  Southern  Colonies,  on  the  other  hand,  were  flooded 
with  indentured  servants  and  ruffians  pressed  from  the 
London  streets,  and  this  motley  crowd  submerged  the 
scattered  communities  of  Scotch-Irish  and  Huguenots. 
While  the  Puritan  was  careful  beyond  comparison  in 
the  observance  of  the  Sabbath,  the  bulk  of  the  popula- 
tion in  the  South  made  it  a  day  for  amusements  and  broils. 

The  Puritans  did  not  equal  one-fourth  of  the  total 
population  in  the  eighteenth  century,  and  perhaps  one- 
half  in  the  seventeenth,  so  that  the  colonies,  as  a  whole, 
were  not  of  the  Puritan  type.  Outside  of  New  Eng- 
land, it  may  be  questioned  whether  the  laws  of  God 
were  reverenced  in  the  early  days  more  than  at  the  pres- 
ent time.  The  writer  who  maintained  that  the  Carolina 
settlers  reverenced  "  neither  God  nor  man  "  may  have 
exaggerated  the  irreligious  character  of  the  people,  but 
in  any  case  this  community  had  very  little  of  the  Puritan 
flavor.  There  is  considerable  trouble  experienced  by  the 
modern  who  attempts  to  characterize  the  typical  Amer- 


330  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

ican,  and  there  would  not  have  been  less  two  hundred 
years  ago.  One  runs  no  risk  in  making  the  statement 
that  while  the  Puritan  contributed  much  of  the  iron  in 
the  blood  of  the  coming  race,  he  did  not  furnish  the 
typical  American  of  the  seventeenth  century.  We  may 
not  therefore  take  his  religious  beliefs,  as  is  often  done, 
as  typical  of  the  convictions  of  the  colonists  as  a  whole. 
One  who  studies  the  records  of  the  contemporary  his- 
torians previous  to  the  American  Revolution  will  scarcely 
conclude  that  the  typical  citizen  of  those  days  was  a 
Christian,  nor  that  the  country  as  a  whole  was  dominantly 
Christian. 

2.  Commonwealth  Constitutions. 

Throughout  these  chapters  the  term  Commonwealth 
is  used  instead  of  the  term  State,  when  designating  a 
portion  of  the  country,  to  prevent  confusion  with  State, 
the  social  spirit,  or  nation.  The  word  Commonwealth  is 
in  common  use,  so  that  it  will  require  no  explanation 
further  than  this  statement. 

When  the  Continental  Congress  in  1776  declared  the 
people  independent  of  English  jurisdiction,  the  individual 
Colonies  were  left,  with  few  exceptions,  without  a  frame 
of  Government.  The  Charters  under  which  they  had 
enjoyed  a  good  measure  of  self-control  had  been  revoked 
by  the  king,  and  their  assemblies  outlawed.  Massachu- 
setts had  supplied  the  place,  by  Committees  of  Corre- 
spondence, but  this  could  serve  only  a  temporary  pur- 
pose. It  was  evident  that  some  new  method  must  be 
inaugurated  to  meet  the  exigencies  of  the  situation.     In 


WHAT  CONSTITUTES  A  CHRISTIAN  STATE     331 

this  crisis  the  Colonies  applied  to  Congress  for  advice 
as  to  what  they  ought  to  do.  Congress  replied  that  each 
Colony  should  frame  a  Constitution  for  itself,  a  recom- 
mendation which  met  the  wishes  of  the  people  so  entirely 
that  they  at  once  proceeded  to  put  it  into  practice.  It 
does  not  appear  that  any  one  of  the  Colonies  acted  without 
the  Congressional  advice  and  oversight,  so  that  the  unity 
of  the  people  under  a  central  Government  was  recog- 
nized from  the  beginning  of  Commonwealth  existence. 
The  facts  of  this  period  do  not  give  aid  or  comfort  to 
the  exponent  of  "  State  Rights,"  however  the  wording  of 
the  public  documents  may  sanction  his  views. 

In  the  years  from  1776  to  1780  nearly  all  of  the  Com- 
monwealths framed  Constitutions  and  became  self-gov- 
erning communities. 

In  comparing  the  religious  features  of  these  instruments 
with  those  of  the  Charters  of  earlier  date,  no  radical 
change  is  to  be  noted.  The  name  of  God  occurs  with 
less  frequency,  but  as  neither  Charters  nor  Common- 
wealth Constitutions  acknowledged  the  authority  of  God 
in  political  affairs,  there  was  no  special  departure  from 
the  precedent  set  by  the  Charters.  There  is  nothing  in 
the  Constitutions  of  the  Commonwealths  to  recall  the 
acknowledgments  made  by  the  settlers  at  New  Haven 
and  Hartford.  These  examples  from  Connecticut  stand 
alone  in  American  history. 

Under  the  Charters  an  oath  had  been  required  of  public 
officials,  and  the  same  was  the  rule  under  the  Common- 
wealth Constitutions.  Pennsylvania  and  Delaware  framed 
Constitutions  in  1776,  which  allowed  for  an  affirmation 


332  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

instead  of  the  official  oath,  but  both  required  of  the  can- 
didate for  political  positions  a  declaration  of  a  belief  in 
God  and  in  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures. 

This  clause  in  the  Constitution  of  Delaware  reads :  "  I 
do  profess  faith  in  God  the  Father  and  in  Jesus  Christ 
His  only  Son,  and  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  one  God  blessed 
forevermore;  and  I  do  acknowledge  the  Holy  Scriptures 
of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  to  be  given  by  divine 
inspiration."  While  this  is  an  explicit  requirement  that 
the  candidate  shall  be  a  Christian,  it  does  not  confess 
the  authority  of  God  in  civil  affairs.  In  other  words,  it 
is  a  personal,  not  a  social,  confession  of  faith. 

It  is  worth  noting  as  an  evidence  of  the  influence  of 
the  irreligious  character  of  the  Federal  Constitution,  and 
the  decadence  of  the  times,  that  Delaware  revised  this 
clause  from  its  Constitution  in  1792,  substituting  the  test 
clause  from  the  Federal  Constitution :  "  No  religious 
test  shall  ever  be  required  as  a  qualification/'  for  holding 
office. 

In  1780,  Massachusetts  required  a  belief  in  the  Christian 
religion  as  a  condition  of  holding  office,  and  in  the  same 
year  the  Constitution  of  North  Carolina  required  the  ac- 
ceptance of  the  Protestant  religion  by  its  officials.  These 
requirements  indicate  that  while  the  law  of  Jesus  Christ 
had  not  been  accepted  as  the  rule  which  should  be  su- 
preme in  civil  affairs,  the  people  judged  it  necessary  to 
insist  on  Christian  qualifications  in  the  man  whom  they 
would  entrust  with  political  power.  This  is  not  an  unusual 
.circumstance.  The  merchant  who  sands  his  sugar,  puts 
talc  in  his  flour  and  chicory  in  the  coffee,  may  yet  insist 


WHAT  CONSTITUTES  A  CHRISTIAN  STATE      333 

upon  Christian  qualifications  in  the  men  whom  he  employs 
to  sell  the  goods.  They  must  be  Christians,  but  not  to 
that  extent  that  they  refuse  to  handle  adulterated  goods. 
The  clerk  may  be  expected  to  give  short  measure,  but 
must  not  falsify  the  books.  Men  frequently  want  a  Chris- 
tion  official  to  administer  unchristian  law. 

This  may  serve  to  explain,  in  part,  why  the  test  of 
Christianity  was  applied  to  the  official,  and  not  to  the 
law  which  he  had  to  administer;  it  guarded  personal  re- 
sponsibility of  the  official  to  the  people,  and  ignored  the 
social  responsibility  of  the  society  to  God.  The  Con- 
stitutions of  the  different  Commonwealths,  based  the 
authority  for  the  execution  of  the  functions  of  Govern- 
ment solely  upon  the  sovereignty  of  the  people.  The 
initial  phrase  of  the   Federal   Constitution  — "  We  the 

people do  ordain  and  establish  this  Constitution  "  — 

was  not  original  with  the  members  of  the  Constitutional 
Convention  at  Philadelphia  in  1787.  It  was  copied  from 
the  Constitutions  of  the  Commonwealths.. 

None  of  the  Commonwealths  made  any  confession,  in 
their  Constitutions,  of  the  authority  of  Jesus  Christ  in 
political  affairs,  nor  of  the  supremacy  of  His  law  in 
moral  questions.  Some  made  mention  of  the  existence 
of  God,  some  of  His  goodness,  but  none  of  His  authority. 
Massachusetts,  in  the  Constitution  adopted  in  1780,  makes 
the  following  declaration :  "  We,  therefore,  the  people  of 
Massachusetts,   acknowledging  with   grateful   heart   the 

goodness  of  the  Great  Legislator  of  the  universe do 

agree  upon,  ordain,  and  establish,  the  following  declara- 
tion of  rights  and  frame  of  government,  as  the  Constitu- 


334  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

tion  of  the  Commonwealth  of  Massachusetts."  This  dec- 
laration, which  finds  substantial  parallels  in  other  public 
documents  of  the  same  date,  confesses  the  goodness  of 
God,  but  it  lays  no  obligation  upon  the  official  acting 
under  it  to  enact,  or  to  interpret,  laws  in  harmony  with 
the  law  of  God.  Such  forms  of  expression  have,  there- 
fore, no  legal  value  whatever.  They  are  only  expressions 
of  sentiment,  which  need  have  no  influence  on  the  con- 
duct of  the  Government. 

This  is  the  particular  fact  to  which  attention  is  called. 
The  acceptance  of  the  law  of  Jesus  Christ  as  the  rule 
of  life  is  what  constitutes  a  Christian.  The  lack  of  this 
acceptance  disallows  of  either  individual,  or  institution, 
claiming  the  name  of  Christian.  Therefore,  the  conclu- 
sion seems  necessary  that  the  expression  of  the  social  life 
through  the  Commonwealth  Constitutions,  does  not  in- 
dicate that  the  State  was  Christian  previous  to  1787. 

The  fundamental  civil  law  of  the  land  is  the  Federal 
Constitution,  and  therefore  it  is  the  chief  subject  of  study 
when  one  wishes  to  determine  the  character  of  American 
law.  During  a  century  it  has  expressed  the  life  and 
moulded  the  law  and  the  ideas  of  the  people.  Once  it 
had  a  radical  change,  as  the  result  of  a  revolution  in 
sentiment  brought  on  by  the  Civil  War;  hundreds  of 
amendments  have  been  proposed,  fifty  being  offered  dur- 
ing the  recent  session  of  Congress,  yet  it  would  scarcely 
be  disputed  that  the  Constitution,  so  far  as  its  moral 
character  is  concerned,  satisfies  the  people  as  well  today 
as  in  its  earlier  years.  For  this  reason  the  Federal  Con- 
stitution may  be  taken  as  furnishing  the  moral  standard 


WHAT  CONSTITUTES  A  CHRISTIAN  STATE      336 

which  the  American  people  would  have  in  law.  By  study- 
ing what  the  people  like,  we  can  learn  what  the  people 
are.  So  long  as  the  social  spirit  does  not  demand  changes 
in  the  law,  it  is  fair  to  conclude  that  the  law  gives  sat- 
isfactory expression  to  the  social  life. 

5.  The  Federal  Constitution. 

The  forms  of  law  which  have  been  cited  belong  to  the 
past,  and  are  expressions  of  past  life.  The  Federal  Con- 
stitution is  the  accepted  expression  of  the  social  life  of 
the  present.  It  is,  therefore,  to  its  features,  rather  than 
to  preceding  forms  of  law,  that  we  turn  for  evidence  as 
to  the  present  character  of  the  State.  If  the  Federal  Con- 
stitution is  Christian,  it  would  be  a  fair  inference  that  the 
State,  of  which  it  is  the  expression,  is  Christian;  if  the 
Constitution  is  not  Christian,  it  will  be  equally  strong  evi- 
dence on  the  other  side. 

The  Decline  in  Religions  Expression. 

We  have  already  noticed  that  the  clearest,  in  fact  the 
only,  acknowledgment  of  the  supremacy  of  God  in  civil 
affairs  found  in  any  American  Constitution  of  Govern- 
ment was  that  made  by  the  Ccnnecticut  settlers  in  1639. 
Religious  expressions  are  frequent  i:i  the  Commonwealth 
Constitutions  of  1776  and  succeeding  years,  though  they 
diminish  wit-i  each  revisirn  of  these  instruments  of  Gov- 
ernment. In  the  Federal  Constitution  they  do  not  appear. 
The  reason  for  this  decline  in  religious  expression  in  the 
Constitutions  is  apparent.  The  adequate  expressions  of 
the  authority  of  the  law  of  God  were  made  by  small  and 


336  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

select  communities,  where  there  was  little  divergence  in 
interests,  or  belief.  As  the  population  increased  in  these 
centers  it  was  drawn  from  various  sources, .it  included 
elements  of  entirely  different  character.  Something  else 
than  religion  became  the  dominant  interest  in  the  neigh- 
borhood. The  same  people,  or  their  descendants,  are  still 
there  and  still  have  an  influence  on  the  neighborhood  life. 
But  they  have  changed  in  character,  or  have  ceased  to 
exercise  so  much  influence. 

This  change  is  emphasized  when  these  communities 
are  drawn  together  in  the  larger  unity  of  the  Common- 
wealth. In  this  union  a  larger  variety  of  belief,  or  un- 
belief, was  included,  which  demanded  the  modifying,  or 
even  the  exclusion,  of  the  religious  features  in  the  law. 
The  Constitution  of  the  Commonwealth  had  its  character 
modified  to  suit  the  spirit  which  it  expressed. 

The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  makes  a  still 
greater  departure  from  the  Connecticut  model  of  1639. 
When  the  heterogeneous  population  reaching  along  the 
whole  Atlantic  seaboard,  a  population  including  a  large 
body  of  unbelievers,  and  many  others  who  were  indiffer- 
ent, sought  to  find  expression  for  their  political  beliefs 
through  a  single  document,  that  document  contained  no 
religious  features.  Not  only  are  religious  expressions 
absent  from  the  Federal  Constitution,  but  they  are  de- 
barred by  its  own  explicit  provision.  It  is  avowedly 
agnostic. 

One  fact  deserves  notice  before  leaving  this  phase  of 
the  subject.  The  Federal  Constitution,  while  it  did  not 
follow  the  precedent,  set  by  the  Commonwealth  Constitu- 


WHAT  CONSTITUTES  A  CHRISTIAN  STATE      337 

tions,  of  demanding  an  oath  from  the  candidates  for 
official  position,  or  requiring  a  profession  of  their  belief 
in  Christ,  agrees  with  them  in  not  taking  the  law  of 
Christ  as  the  standard  of  official  conduct.  None  of  the 
Commonwealth  Constitutions  had  such  requirement,  nor 
was  such  made,  subsequent  to  the  New  Haven  act  of 
1639.  This  act  required  conformity  to  the  divine  stand- 
ard of  legislation ;  the  Commonwealth  Constitutions  made 
the  demand  that  the  official  should  be  a  Christian;  the 
Federal  Constitution  prohibited  any  requirement  of  per- 
sonal or  social  religion.  Such  was  the  progress  of  the 
years,  toward  the  total  ignoring  of  God  in  the  funda- 
mental law  of  the  land.  Before  turning  to  the  internal 
evidence  of  the  Constitution  itself  on  this  point  it  may 
be  well  to  consider  some  counter-claims  in  regard  to  the 
character  of  this  Constitution. 

Gladstone  declared  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
the  greatest  production  struck  off  by  the  mind  of  man 
at  a  single  sitting.  While  there  was  but  a  single  feature 
in  this  frame  of  Government,  the  provision  for  the  elec- 
tion of  the  President,  that  was  not  taken  from  Colonial 
precedent,  one  is  inclined  to  agree  with  the  English 
eulogist,  that  no  other  country  can  boast  its  equal. 

Carefully  did  it  guard  the  rights  of  man,  except  where 
it  riveted  the  fetters  of  the  slave;  but  in  this  did  only 
what  was  done  at  that  time  by  the  laws  of  every  country 
to  which  the  black  man  had  been  carried.  Wisely  were 
the  powers  of  Government  divided  between  the  depart- 
ments. With  patience  were  its  measures  fused  over  the 
fires  of  prolonged  debate.    The  greatest  minds  which  this 


338  •  -  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

country  could   furnish  shared  in  the  deliberations.     It 
was  a  magnificent  piece  of  work ;  but  it  was  not  Christian. 

It  Was  Made  by  Christian  Men. 

It  is  sometimes  said  that  it  was  made  by  Christians, 
and  that  therefore  it  is  Christian.  As  to  the  religious 
convictions  of  the  men  who  met  in  Philadelphia  during 
the  Summer  days  of  1787,  to  propose  a  frame  of  Gov- 
ernment which  would  "  meet  the  exigencies  of  the  Union," 
it  would  not  be  possible  to  draw  final  conclusions.  Some 
of  them  were  avowed  Christians ;  some  were  avowed  un- 
believers. '  Which  factor  had  the  majority  in  the  Con- 
vention can  not  be  determined  after  this  lapse  of  time. 

It  may  throw  some  light  on  the  dominant  influence 
in  the  Convention  to  recall  that  none  of  is  sessions  were 
opened,  or  closed,  with  prayer.  No  reason  is  at  hand  to 
account  for  this  departure  from  the  prevailing  custom. 
On  the  28th  of  May,  when  the  differences  between  the 
large  and  the  small  Commonwealths  over  the  question  of 
representation  seemed  on  the  point  of  disrupting  the  Con- 
vention, Franklin  proposed  that  prayer  should  be  offered 
daily.  "  In  this  situation  of  the  Assembly,  groping  as  it 
were  in  the  dark  to  find  political  truth,  and  scarce  able  to 
distinguish  it  when  presented  to  us,  how  has  it  happened, 
Sir,  that  we  have  not  hitherto  once  thought  of  humbly 
applying  to  the  Father  of  lights,  to  illuminate  our  under- 
standings? In  the  beginnings  of  the  contest  with  Great 
Britain,  when  we  were  sensible  of  danger,  we  had  daily 
prayer  in  this  room  for  the  divine  protection.  Our 
prayers,  Sir,  were  heard,  and  they  were  graciously  an- 


WHAT  CONSTITUTES  A  CHRISTIAN  STATE      339 

swered.  All  of  us  who  were  engaged  in  the  struggle 
must  have  observed  frequent  instances  of  a  superintend- 
ing Providence  in  our  favor.  To  that  kind  Providence  we 
owe  this  happy  opportunity  of  consulting  in  peace  on  the 
means  of  establishing  our  future  national  felicity.  And 
have  we  now  forgotten  that  powerful  friend?  Or  do 
we  imagine  that  we  no  longer  need  His  assistance?  I 
have  lived,  Sir,  a  long  time,  and  the  longer  I  live,  the 
more  convincing  proofs  I  see  of  this  truth  —  that  God 
governs  in  the  affairs  of  men.  And  if  a  sparrow  can  not 
fall  to  the  ground  without  His  notice,  is  it  probable  that 
an  empire  can  rise  without  His  aid?  We  have  been  as- 
sured, Sir,  in  the  sacred  writings  that  *  except  the  Lord 
build  the  house,  they  labor  in  vain  that  build  it.'  I  firmly 
believe  this ;  and  I  also  believe  that  without  His  con- 
curring aid  we  shall  succeed  in  this  political  building 
no  better  than  the  builders  of  Babel." 

Hamilton  and  others  expressed  the  fear  that  having 
recourse  to  prayer  at  that  time  might  lead  the  public  to 
conclude  that  they  were  seriously  embarrassed ;  Franklin 
rejoined  that  the  omission  of  a  duty  could  not  justify  a 
further  omission,  and  that  the  rejection  of  the  proposi- 
tion would  subject  the  Convention  to  adverse  criticism. 
Mr.  Randolph  proposed,  in  order  to  give  color  to  the 
proposed  change,  that  a  sermon  be  preached  on  July 
4th.  Franklin  seconded  this  motion,  but  it  was  not  al- 
lowed to  come  to  a  vote,  that  act  being  prevented  by 
adjournment.  There  is  no  record  of  the  proposal  being 
renewed  at  later  sessions.  Whatever  may  be  said  as  to 
the  character  of  the  members  of  the  Convention,  it  seems 


340  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

a  fair  inference  that  the  religious  idea  was  not  a  con- 
trolling factor  in  the  proceedings. 

The  Constitution  a  Product  of  Christianity, 

It  is  sometimes  claimed  that  the  Constitution  is  Chris- 
tian because  its  provisions  are  an  outcome  of  Christianity. 
Undoubtedly  the  Constitution  would  not  have  been  with- 
out the  influences  that  flowed  from  the  life  and  death  of 
Jesus  Christ,  but  would  that  make  it  Christian?  The 
freedom  of  thought  and  action  which  it  proposes  did 
not  exist  until  Christianity  gave  it  birth.  It  does  not 
yet  exist  where  the  influence  of  Christianity  is  not  felt. 
But  while  modern  civilization  would  not  have  been  what 
it  is  without  Christianity,  it  is  a  large  assumption  which 
calls  all  its  elements  Christian  on  that  account. 

The  infidel  is  allowed  to  declaim  or  publish  his  blas- 
phemies today  practically  without  hindrance;  before  the 
work  of  Jesus  was  done  he  would  have  suffered  the  death 
penalty  for  such  an  offense.  Because  Socrates  spoke 
against  the  gods  he  was  compelled  to  drink  the  hemlock. 
Such  was  the  fate  of  the  infidel  before  Jesus  won  tolera- 
tion for  friend  and  foe  alike.  Though  the  modern  in- 
fidel is  a  by-product  of  Christianity,  it  does  not  follow 
that  he  is  a  Christian.  The  individual,  or  the  institu- 
tion, may  reap  the  temporal  benefits  of  the  work  of  Jesus 
Christ,  while  refusing  to  confess  the  name  of  the  bene- 
factor. This  the  American  State  has  done.  It  appro- 
priates the  gift  and  in  its  fundamental  law  denies  the 
giver.  "Ingratitude,  more  strong  than  traitors'  arms," 
has  ruled  in  the  counsels  of  the  nations. 


WHAT  CONSTITUTES  A  CHRISTIAN  STATE      341 

The  Date  of  the  Constitution. 

Some  have  seen  in  the  dating  of  the  Constitution,  "  in 
the  year  of  our  Lord,"  an  acknowledgment  of  Christ. 
But  if  that  constitutes  it  a  Christian  instrument,  then 
every  letter  which  is  written  with  a  date  upon  it,  deserves 
the  name.  This  would  assert  that  the  letters  of  Voltaire 
and  Thomas  Paine  were  Christian  documents,  as  well 
as  those  written  by  Calvin,  or  Luther.  Everyone  who 
writes  A.  D.  on  his  production  does  not  by  that  act  prove 
its  Christian  character. 

But  there  is  another  line  of  objection  to  this  sweeping 
claim.  All  treaties  made  under  the  Constitution  become 
a  part  of  the  supreme  law  of  the  land.  Now  the  treaty 
with  Tripoli,  ratified  in  1798,  bears  also  the  Mohamme- 
dan dating,  "  in  the  year  of  the  Hejira  1211 "  so  that  if 
one  date  recognizes  Christ  the  other  must  acknowledge 
Mohammed.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  neither  dates  have  any 
religious  significance  in  the  connection  in  which  they  are 
found. 

The  character  of  the  Constitution  must  be  settled  by  a 
study  of  its  provisions.  It  has  been  already  claimed  that 
it  is  a  product,  one  of  the  finest  products,  of  civilization. 
By  this  Constitution,  then,  may  the  character  of  the 
civilization  be  known.  The  purpose  of  this  chapter  is 
to  determine  whether  or  not  the  American  State  is  Chris- 
tian. Taking  the  Federal  Constitution  as  one  of  the  ripest 
products  of  the  age,  it  becomes  a  fitting  subject  of  in- 
vestigation in  determining  the  character  of  the  age,  and 
of  the  American  State.    It  is  with  this  idea  that  we  turn 


342  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

to  the  study  of  the  religious  character  of  the  law  of  the 
land. 

i.  The  Preamble  of  the  Constitution. 

This  is  the  section  of  the  Constitution  on  which  each 
succeeding  item  depends  for  its  sanction.  All  the  pro- 
visions of  the  instrument  rest  on  the  authority  of  the 

people.    The  preamble  reads :    "  We  the  people -  do 

ordain  and  establish  this  Constitution  for  the  United 
States  of  America."  The  Constitution,  therefore,  rests 
on  the  will  of  the  people  and  acknowledges  no  higher  au- 
thority. It  is  by  profession  a  supreme  law  made  by  a 
supreme  people.  As  has  been  stated  in  a  previous  chap- 
ter, it  is  thoroughly  in  agreement  with  the  principles 
governing  the  delegation  of  authority  in  political  and  in- 
dustrial affairs,  that  the  Government  should  be  made  thus 
to  acknowledge  the  authority  of  the  State  which  called  it 
into  being. 

In  another  respect,  however,  the  Constitution  fails  to 
conform  to  the  general  principles  governing  such  dele- 
gation, since  it  does  not  recognize  the  authority  of  Jesus 
Christ  over  the  State.  The  people  is  the  immediate 
source  of  authority  in  Government.  That  much  is  true. 
But  the  people  is  not  the  ultimate  source  of  authority. 
The  State  is  superior  to  the  Government,  but  the  State, 
in  its  turn,  is  inferior  to  the  higher  power.  This  fact 
should  be  stated  in  the  preamble  which  assumes  to  lay 
the  foundation  for  political  action.  As  the  preamble 
stands,  it  gives  the  State  the  supreme  place,  thus  putting 
the  people  in  the  place  of  God.    This  was  practically  the 


WHAT  CONSTITUTES  A  CHRISTIAN  STATE      343 

view  of  Comte,  who  held  that  humanity  was  God,  to 
whom  the  worship  of  the  citizen  was  due ;  and  while  this 
idea  was  doubtless  not  in  the  mind  of  the  designers  of 
this  preamble,  their  denial  of  the  supremacy  of  the  Lord, 
leaves  no  other  alternative. 

It  is  said  that  this  acknowledgment  of  the  authority  of 
the  people  implies,  while  it  does  not  state,  the  supremacy 
of  a  higher  authority.  But  the  necessary  interpretation  of 
other  parts  of  the  Constitution  makes  this  position  un- 
tenable. The  Convention  which  declined  to  appeal  to 
Jesus  Christ  in  prayer  also  refused  to  accept  Him  as 
the  ruler  of  the  State.  Since  we  have  defined  the  Chris- 
tian as  one  who  accepts  the  law  of  Christ  as  the  rule 
of  life,  it  is  quite  evident  that  the  Constitution,  which 
puts  the  will  of  the  State  in  place  of  the  will  of  Christ, 
does  not  deserve  the  name. 

2.  The  Official  Oaih. 

Previous  to  1789  it  had  been  the  uniform  rule  to  re- 
quire that  Government  officials  should  be  inducted  into 
office  by  the  use  of  the  oath.  This,  in  the  nature  of  the 
case,  was  an  appeal  to  God,  and  therefore  served  as  a 
religious  test.  It  is  quite  another  thing  from  taking  the 
Word  of  God  as  the  rule  by  which  the  moral  questions 
arising  in  the  performance  of  his  official  duties  should 
be  judged.  Yet  this  requirement  discriminated  against 
the  unbeliever  in  favor  of  the  Christian,  and  was  a  re- 
ligious feature  common  to  all  the  Constitutions  of  earlier 
date.  The  Constitution  of  New  Jersey,  made  in  1776,  is 
one  of  the  few  cases,  if  not  the  only  one,  where  the  Com- 


344  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

monwealth  did  not  require  an  oath  of  the  candidate  for 
office.  The  twenty-third  item  in  the  New  Jersey  frame 
of  Government  reads,  in  part :  "  I,  A.  B.,  do  solemnly 
declare,  etc."  In  many  of  the  Commonwealths  exception 
was  made  in  favor  of  the  Quakers  who  had  conscientious 
objections  to  the  use  of  the  oath.  The  Constitution  of 
the  Commonwealth  of  New  York  furnishes  one  instance 
of  this  exception  in  favor  of  the  Quakers.  The  clause  re- 
lating to  the  oath  reads :  "  That  every  elector,  before  he  is 
admitted  to  vote,  shall,  if  required  by  the  returning  officer 
or  either  of  the  inspectors,  take  an  oath,  or,  if  of  the 
people  called  Quakers,  an  affirmation  of  allegiance  to 
the  State."  It  had  been  customary,  in  many  instances,  to 
use  the  words  "  swear,  or  affirm,"  but  the  appeal  to  God 
at  the  end  of  the  formula  was  retained. 

It  is  because  the  oath  had  been  uniformly  required  of 
the  elector  and  the  official  previous  to  the  formation  of 
the  Federal  Constitution,  that  the  omission  of  the  oath 
from  the  Constitution  makes  a  departure  from  precedent. 
In  the  second  article  of  the  Constitution,  the  formula  is 
given  which  the  President  of  the  United  States  is  re- 
quired to  take  at  his  inauguration :  "  I  do  solemnly  swear 
(or  affirm)  that  I  will  faithfully  execute  the  office  of  Pres- 
ident of  the  United  States,  and  will  to  the  best  of  my 
ability,  preserve,  protect  and  defend  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States."  It  has  been  the  custom  of  the  Presi- 
dents to  add  an  appeal  to  God  in  their  use  of  this  for- 
mula, but  it  is  not  in  the  bond.  The  Constitution  does 
not  require  that  Government  officials  shall  believe  in  God, 
and  the  citizen  who  makes  such  a  demand  of  a  candidate 


WHAT  CONSTITUTES  A  CHRISTIAN  STATE      345 

as  a  condition  to  giving  him  support,  is  laying  down  an 
unconstitutional  requirement.  To  ask  that  a  candidate 
shall  be  a  Christian  is  to  ask  that  he  shall  be  better  than 
the  law  which  is  to  guide  him. 

For  conclusive  evidence  that  the  substitution  of  an 
affirmation  for  an  official  oath  was  not  through  any  over- 
sight, but  of  deliberate  purpose,  we  have  only  to  turn 
to  the  records  of  the  different  drafts  of  the  Constitution 
submitted  to  the  Convention.  The  original  draft  pro- 
posed by  Randolph  on  May  29th  contained  this  clause: 
"Resolved,  That  the  legislative,  executive,  and  judiciary 
powers,  within  the  several  States,  ought  to  be  bound,  by 
oath,  to  support  the  articles  of  union."  The  Pinckney 
plan  provided  that  the  President  "  At  entering  on  the 
duties  of  his  office  shall  take  an  oath  faithfully  to  exe- 
cute the  duties  of  the  President  of  the  United  States." 
It  is  thus  made  clear  that  the  first  drafts  before  the  Con- 
vention followed  the  former  custom  of  requiring  an  oath 
from  the  President  of  the  United  States  and  other  Gov- 
ernment officials,  and  that  the  change,  to  mere  affirmation 
instead,  was  made  with  the  question  before  the  members. 

Some  days  later,  on  August  6th,  the  committee  to  which 
the  various  proposals  had  been  submitted,  reported  the 
form  of  oath,  or  affirmation,  provided  for  the  President,  as 
it  is  found  in  the  Constitution.  At  the  same  time  the  com- 
mittee reported  the  following  \  rovision  for  other  officials  : 
"  The  members  of  the  legislatures,  and  the  executive 
and  judicial  officers  of  the  United  States  and  of  the  sev 
eral  States,  shall  be  bound  by  oath  to  support  the  Con- 
stitution."   On  August  30th  the  words  "  or  affirmation  " 


346  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

were  inserted  after  the  word  "  oath."  This  provision 
of  the  Constitution,  which  appears  as  the  last  paragraph 
of  Article  6,  had  its  phraseology  changed  somewhat  in 
later  revisions,  but  the  wording  concerning  the  oath  re- 
mained as  stated  here.  It  was  in  connection  with  this 
section  that  the  religious  test  clause  was  moved  by  Pinck- 
ney,  and  was  unanimously  adopted  by  the  Convention. 

While  the  records  of  the  Convention  do  not  witness 
to  any  debate  upon  the  emasculation  of  the  oath,  it  is 
evident  to  anyone  who  follows  the  testimony  at  hand,  that 
the  matter  had  due  consideration.  The  first  drafts  re« 
quired  an  oath;  the  later  revisions  omitted  it.  There  is 
a  consistency  in  the  whole  proceeding  which  forbids  any 
thought  of  negligence.  The  result  of  dropping  the  re- 
quirement of  the  oath  for  officials  was  seen  soon  after  in 
the  action  of  Congress.  The  House  of  Representatives, 
in  session  May  6th,  1789,  adopted  the  following  oath  for 
use  by  its  members :  "  I,  A.  B.,  do  solemnly  swear  (or 
affirm,  as  the  case  may  be)  in  the  presence  of  Almighty 
God,  that  I  will  support  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  so  help  me  God." 

The  first  statute  which  appears  upon  the  record  of  the 
acts  of  Congress,  bears  the  date  of  June  1st,  1789,  and 
reads  in  part  as  follows :  "  I  do  solemnly  swear  (or  af- 
firm, as  the  case  may  be)  that  I  will  support  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States."  This  remains  as  a  law 
of  Congress,  and  conforms  to  the  requirements  in  the 
Constitution.  When  the  name  of  God  was  excluded  from 
the  supreme  law,  inferior  law  hastened  to  fall  into  har- 
mony with  it.    By  these  easy  stages  did  the  name  of  God 


WHAT  CONSTITUTES  A  CHRISTIAN  STATE     zM 

cease  to  have  any  legal  place  in  the  official  language  of 
the  Republic.  It  is  frankly  admitted  that  the  name  of 
God,  unless  taken  reverently,  has  but  little  meaning;  yet 
the  patriot  must  look  with  some  anxiety  on  those  pro- 
ceedings in  the  Constitutional  Convention,  and  the  Con- 
gress meeting  under  the  Constitution,  which  deliberately 
excluded  that  name  "  which  is  above  every  name  "  from 
the  supreme  law  of  the  land. 

In  the  scanty  records  which  remain  of  the  proceedings 
of  the  ratifying  Conventions  there  is  but  slight  reference 
in  the  debates  to  the  substitution  of  affirmation  for  an 
appeal  to  God.  The  objection?  raised  to  the  Constitution 
on  that  point  must  have  been  few.  Evidently  the  dele- 
gates were  not  greatly  shocked  by  the  omission.  One 
reference  to  the  matter  is  credited  to  Henry  Abbott  of 
North  Carolina.  "  Some/'  he  said,  "  are  desirous  to  know 
how  and  by  whom  we  are  to  swear,  since  no  religious 
test  is  required  —  whether  they  are  to  swear  by  Jupiter, 
Juno,  Minerva,  Prosperpina,  or  Pluto."  The  record  does 
not  show  that  he  received  any  information  on  the  matter. 

3.  The  Test  Clause. 

The  third  paragraph  of  Article  6  of  the  Constitution 
reads :  "  No  religious  test  shall  ever  be  required  as  a 
qualification  to  any  office  or  public  trust  under  the  United 
States."  Under  the  previous  citations  it  might  be  possible 
to  advance  the  claim  that  the  Constitution  had  failed,  if 
at  all,  through  omissions,  rather  than  by  any  positive 
provision.  But  in  the  test  clause  quoted  there  is  an  ex- 
plicit prohibition  of  any  religious  feature  in  the  Con- 


348  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

stitution. 

What  is  a  religious  test?  Perhaps  a  more  definite 
knowledge  of  its  meaning  may  be  gained  by  a  reference 
to  a  political  test,  with  the  working  of  which  all  are 
familiar.  When  a  foreigner  wishes  to  become  a  citizen 
of  the  United  States,  there  are  certain  conditions  which 
he  must  satisfy.  If  he  is  an  Englishman,  he  must  give 
up  his  allegiance  to  the  king  and  exchange  the  monarchy 
for  the  Republic;  he  must  abjure  any  allegiance  to  a 
foreign  State.  This  is  a  political  test,  and  unless  the 
embryo  citizen  is  willing  to  take  this  test  the  court  must 
refuse  naturalization. 

Now  the  meaning  of  a  religious  test  is  equally  clear. 
If  a  Mohammedan  were  ordered  to  give  up  the  Koran, 
or  the  Hindoo  to  abjure  the  Vedas,  it  would  constitute 
a  religious  test.  If  these  parties  were  asked  to  accept  any 
institution,  or  teaching,  which  was  distinctively  Chris- 
tian, it  would  be  a  religious  test.  Now  to  apply  these 
illustrations  to  the  matter  in  hand,  if  the  Federal  Consti- 
tution required  of  those  who  owned  allegiance  to  it,  a  be- 
lief in  God,  or  in  the  supremacy  of  His  law,  it  would  be  a 
religious  test  to  the  citizen  who  did  not  believe  in  God, 
or  in  the  supremacy  of  His  law.  It  is,  therefore,  expressly 
forbidden  by  this  clause,  that  any  religious  expression, 
Christian  or  otherwise,  should  appear  in  the  Constitution..- 
Any  other  conclusion  would  allow  one  part  of  the  Con- 
stitution to  contradict  another. 

It  has  been  suggested  that  the  prohibition  was  aimed  at 
sectarian  rather  than  religious  features.  But  if  this  had 
been  the  case  it  would  seem  strange  that  the  right  word 


WHAT  CONSTITUTES  A  CHRISTIAN  STATE      349 

had  not  been  used  by  the  scholarly  men  who  composed 
the  membership  of  the  Convention,  or  by  Gouverneur 
Morris,  who  is  said  to  have  chiefly  influenced  its  diction. 
Had  the  intent  been  to  prevent  discrimination  between 
Christian  denominations  in  political  action,  it  would  have 
our  approval,  though  the  danger  of  such  discrimination 
would  have  been  imaginary. 

But  the  circumstantial  evidence  does  not  admit  of  such 
an  interpretation  of  the  test  clause.  It  was  clearly  the 
intention  of  the  Convention  that  all  religious  features 
should  be  excluded.  The  reference  to  the  name  of  God 
had  already  been  expunged  from  the  official  declaration. 
The  first  Congress  embodied  this  idea  in  a  statute.  In  the 
Fifth  Congress,  where  many  of  the  same  men,  or  their 
influence,  remained,  a  treaty  was  ratified  with  Tripoli. 
As  the  Mohammedans  have  always  stoutly  insisted  that 
the  earth  of  right  belongs  to  Islam,  and  that  no  other 
power  is  on  an  equality  with  the  Mohammedan  States,  it 
was  thought  necessary  to  conciliate  them  in  this  treaty. 
To  this  end  a  clause  was  inserted  in  the  treaty  which 
declares :  "  As  the  Government  of  the  United  States  of 
America  is  not  in  any  sense  founded  on  the  Christian 
religion,  it  has  in  itself  no  character  against  the  laws, 
religion  and  tranquillity  of  Musselmen."  This  was  signed 
by  the  President,  John  Adams,  and  endorsed  by  the  Senate 
of  the  United  States,  the  members  of  which,  we  may  sup- 
pose, understood  the  nature  of  the  Constitution  under 
which  they  acted.  It  does  not  seem  that  the  evidence 
of  the  unchristian  character  of  the  Constitution  admits 
any  possibility  of  rebuttal.     Would  that  it  did! 


35Q  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

One  more  citation  as  to  the  intention  of  the  framers 
will  suffice.  To  the  Presbyterians  of  New  Hampshire 
and  Massachusetts  who  complained  of  the  "  omission  of 
God  "  from  the  Constitution,  Washington  replied  in  the 
Massachusetts  Sentinel  of  December  5th,  1789.  In  this 
open  letter  he  said  that  religion  had  been  left  out  of  the 
Constitution  "  because  it  belonged  to  the  churches,  and 
not  to  the  State."  This  gives  us  the  statement  of  the 
President  of  the  Philadelphia  Convention  that  the  Con- 
stitution has  no  place  for  the  Christ,  or  His  law,  and 
states  the  reason  for  ignoring  them.  It  is  not  atheistic, 
since  it  does  not  deny  the  existence  of  God ;  it  is  agnostic, 
since  it  does  not  know  Him. 
4.  Supreme  Court  Decisions. 

The  Courts  have  sustained  this  view  of  the  Constitu- 
tion at  different  times,  but  there  is  a  more  simple  test 
of  judicial  action  which  anyone,  without  having  recourse 
to  the  Court  records,  may  apply.  The  Courts  are  ruled 
by  the  Constitution,  and  the  principles  contained  in  that 
instrument. outline  their  official  code  of  conduct.  Now  the 
Bible  is  the  text  of  Christianity,  and  if  Christian  prin- 
ciples are  in  the  Constitution,  the  Courts  would  have  to 
be  guided  by  the  Bible  in  their  decisions  on  moral  ques- 
tions. If  it  is  not  in  the  Constitution  as  a  ruling  prin- 
ciple, it  would  be  mere  sentiment  at  the  best,  without  any 
legal  value.  Has  anyone  known  of  the  Courts  basing 
their  decision  for,  or  against  any  party,  on  Bible  teaching  ? 
They  have  never  done  so,  and  it  would  be  in  direct  con- 
travention of  the  Constitution,  the  official  guide  of  the 
Courts,  that  such  action  would  be  taken. 


WHAT  CONSTITUTES  A  CHRISTIAN  STATE      33i 

The  theory  of  the  Convention  at  Philadelphia  in  1787, 
that  the  Government  can  be  neutral  in  the  matter  of 
religion,  is  impossible  in  practice.  Every  people  has  its 
theology;  every  institution  has  its  code  of  morals.  In 
practice  some  standard  is  taken,  and  all  others  rejected. 
It  is  not  at  all  a  question  of  whether  a  moral  standard 
shall  be  chosen,  but  which  one  shall  be  chosen.  When 
the  Constitution,  and  the  Government  acting  under  it, 
as  well  as  the  State  acting  through  it,  barred  Christianity 
as  a  ruling  principle  from  the  fundamental  law,  they  by 
that  act  accepted  some  other  standard.  What  that  prin- 
ciple was,  or  what  it  is,  may  be  a  question  difficult  to 
answer  satisfactorily,  but  that  is  the  only  question. 

It  has  been  suggested  in  a  former  chapter  that  in  prac- 
tice the  ethical  theory  of  Weismannism,  of  natural  se- 
lection, is  the  one  in  general  use.  At  least  the  people, 
Ueting  through  their  representatives,  rejected  Christianity 
as  the  governing  principle  in  political  morals.  What 
the  Jew  emphatically  declared,  has  the  American  im- 
plied, we  will  not  have  this  man  to  rule  over  us. 

This  closes  the  argument  in  regard  to  the  character 
of  the  American  State.  A  few  of  the  leading  social  in- 
stitutions have  been  studied ;  a  few  points  noted  in  regard 
to  each.  The  reader  will  decide  from  the  social  facts 
considered,  or  from  others  that  seem  to  him  more  im- 
portant, on  the  proper  answer  to  the  question.  To  the 
writer  it  does  not  appear  that  the  candid  student  can  be 
long  in  doubt  as  to  what  the  answer  must  be.  Scarcely 
will  anyone  claim  that  our  political  and  industrial  meth- 
ods conform,  even  by  profession,«to  the  teachings  of  Jesus, 


352  SOCIAL  ETHICS 

These  comprise  the  larger  part  of  the  social  practice,  and 
our  conclusions  might  rest  upon  this  basis  alone. 

The  saloon,  which  is  sanctioned  by  law,  and  which  is 
such  an  important  factor  in  political  control,  is  notoriously 
unchristian. 

The  school  gives  only  a  partial  education,  since  it  ex- 
cludes, as  a  text,  frequently  even  from  reference,  the 
Bible,  which  is  the  chief  text-book  of  the  led-out  life. 

The  fundamental  law  excludes  the  Christ.  Is  the  State 
which  expresses  itself  through  these  institutions  a  Chris- 
tian State  ?  Only  an  exceedingly  narrow  definition  of  the 
word  Christian  would  make  an  affirmative  answer  pos- 
sible. 
The  Regeneration  of  the  State. 

In  this  lies  the  nation's  hope.  That  the  Spirit  of  the 
Kingdom  may  permeate  the  social  spirit  is  the  patriot's 
prayer;  the  supreme  end  of  his  labors.  Some  may  dis- 
agree with  the  conclusions  drawn  above  in  regard  to  the 
character  of  the  State,  but  surely  there  is  not  a  Christian 
who  will  raise  a  question  as  to  the  social  end  to  be  gained. 
The  social  spirit  must  be  born  into  the  higher  life.  The 
Word  of  God  should  be  the  text-book  of  the  present  pupil, 
the  future  citizen,  in  the  common  schools.  Only  thus 
can  a  citizenship  be  trained  which  will  ensure  the  perma- 
nence of  republican  institutions.  All  institutions  should 
be  transformed  by  the  Spirit  of  Jesus,  and  those  which  are 
alien  to  the  Kingdom  must  be  banished  from  the  social 
life. 

There  is  need  of  such  change  in  law  as  shall  acknowl- 
edge Jesus  Christ  as  the  King  of  the  State,  and  His  law  as 


WHAT  CONSTITUTES  A  CHRISTIAN  STATE      353 

the  legal  standard  of  morals  to  which  officials,  high  and 
low,  shall  look  as  the  measure  of  official  duty.  This  de- 
mands not  simply  a  formal  but  a  spiritual  change.  There 
is  not  any  popular  demand  for  a  change  in  the  Constitu- 
tion toward  the  expression  of  a  larger  Christianity.  This 
demand  must  be  created  before  such  change  can  be  had. 
Such  fundamental  change  in  law  requires  an  antecedent 
change  in  the  social  life  which  expresses  itself  through 
that  law.  This  may  place  Constitutional  change,  that 
shall  make  the  Government  Christian,  far  in  the  future, 
but  not  farther  than  the  facts  warrant.  The  Spirit  cometh 
"  not  with  observation,"  so  that  the  glorifying  of  the 
Christ  by  the  American  State  may  not  be  so  far  future 
after  all.  There  must  come  to  the  social  mind  a  new 
conviction  of  the  rights  of  Jesus  Christ,  to  call  out  a  social 
profession  of  faith  in  Him.  To  secure  this  end  is  the 
Christian's  duty  and  in  its  fruition  the  patriot's  reward. 
Jesus  prayed  and  died  for  that  end,  and  not  in  vain.  It 
is  in  the  firm  belief  that  the  Holy  Spirit  will  inspire 
earnest  men  with  the  stern  resolution  to  win  America, 
and  the  world,  for  the  Christ,  the  King,  that  this  book 
has  been  written  and  sent  on  its  errand. 


Journal  of  the  Constitutional  Convention,  Madison;  Elliott's 
Debates;  Selected  Documents  from  1606-1775,  Macdonald;  Ori- 
gin of  Republican  Form  of  Government,  Straus;  Critical  His- 
tory of  Sunday  Legislation,  Lewis;  Our  National  Education — 
Is  It  Christian  or  Secular?  Wylie;  Dying  at  the  Top,  a  State- 
ment of  Religious  Conditions,  Clokey;  The  Christian  Society, 
Hcrron. 


INDEX. 


Aristocracy,  158. 
Aristotle,  social  theories  of,  73. 
Authority — 
— delegated  to  Jesus  Christ, 

250. 
— delegated  to  the  State,  257. 
—delegated   to   the   Govern- 
ment, 261. 
— delegated  to   officials,  mu- 
nicipalities and  corpora- 
tions, 268. 
— general  principles  govern- 
ing delegation,  271,  ff. 
— its  source,  247. 
— its  delegation,  249. 

Bagehot,  referred  to,  121. 
Bluntschli,  quoted,  202. 
Burgess,  referred  to,  219,  295. 

Christian,  defined,  305. 
Christian  State,  defined,  308. 
Christianity  and  the  social  con- 
science, 153. 
Church,  as  a  social  institution, 

49. 
— and   State,  56. 
— and  State,  reason  for  unit- 
ing, 60. 
— and  Government,  58,  ff,  65, 

157. 

— as  related  to  other  institu- 
tions, 51,  57. 

— defined,  65. 

— the  character  of,  311. 
Comte,  referred  to,  97,  343- 


Conscience  and  habit,  142. 
— generalizes,  143. 
— social,  defined,  141,  145. 
Constitution  and  colonial  char- 
ters, 322. 
Constitutions,  commonwealth, 

330 
Constitution,  federal,  335. 
— character  of,  335. 
— product  of  Christianity, 

340. 
Coulange,  De,  quoted,  102,  193. 

Darwin,  referred  to,  177. 
Democracy  and  the  social  con- 
science, 155. 
Dunning,   referred  to,  306. 

Education,  its  meaning,  315.  ff. 
Ethics,  dualism  in,  196. 
Ethics  of  natural  selection,  186. 
— illustrated,  190,  ff. 

Family,  patriarchal,  45. 

— its  varied  functions,  45,  ff. 
Feeling,  social,   131,  ff. 
Franklin,  quoted,  338. 
Freedom,  its  development, 

214,  ff. 

— its  conditions,  221. 

Government — 
—identified  with  State,  17. 
— without  justification,  22, 25. 
— effect  of  revolution  on,  32. 
— suggested  in  family,  47. 


355 


356 


INDEX. 


Giddings,  ethical  dualism  of, 

196. 
Green,  T.  H.,  referred  to,  201. 

Habits,  social,    122. 
Hegel,  referred  to,  27,  33,  257. 
Hobbes,  referred  to,  15,  ff,  236. 
Hooker,  quoted,  224. 

Ideas,  social,  116,  122. 
Imagination,  the  social,  120. 
Immigration,  29. 

— the  problem  of,  99. 
Individual  and  the  social  con- 
science, 165. 

— the  relation  of,to  the  State, 

35,  ff,  71. 
Institutions,  social,  44,  ff. 

— conserve  social  energy,  48. 

— methods  of  growth,  51. 

— the  character  of,  311. 
Invention,  the  faculty  of,  120. 

Kant's  view  of  the  ideal,  124. 
Kent,  quoted,  242. 
Kidd,  referred  to,  178. 
Kingdom  of  God,  defined,  173. 

— and  the  kosmos,  174,  f f. 

— development  of,  255. 

Language,  96. 
Law — 

—as  the  expression  of  life, 

321. 

— defined,  229. 

— how  known,  230,  f f.  - 

— its  forms,  233,  237. 

— its  origin,  226. 
Le  Bon,  quoted,  130. 
Lewes,  referred  to,  172. 
Locke,  referred  to,  18. 


Lowell,  quoted,  222. 
Mackenzie,  quoted,  35. 
Marx,  referred  to,  ill. 
Mind,  social,  evidence  for,  97. 

— its  psychology,  in, ff. 
Morris,    quoted,   27. 
Monasteries  and  the  social  con- 
science, 160,  ff. 
Moses,  the  legislation  of,  71,  ff. 

Natural  selection,  148. 

— the  popular  ethical  view,  18 
Naturalization,  defined,  31. 
Nature  of  the  state,  41. 

Oath,  official,  343,  ff. 

Parliament,  not  sovereign,  218. 
Plato,  the  social  theories  of, 
73,  $S- 

Race,  psychic  influence  of,  91. 
Religion  and  the  state,  63. 
— in  social  institutions,  49. 
— as  a  social  bond,  102. 
Religious  features  in  law, 

322,  f f. 
Responsibility  of  corporations, 
269. 
Rousseau  and  individualism, 

77- 
— idea  of  citizenship,  79. 
— common  will  of,  81. 
— quoted,  205. 

Savigny,  referred  to,  233. 
School,  its  character,  314,  ff. 
Small,  quoted,  181. 
Social  problem,  its  nature,    14. 
Spencer,  referred  to, 

19,  f f,  32,  84. 


INDEX. 


357 


State,  defined,  26. 

— a  psychic  organism,  39. 

— and  social  institutions,. 

44,  f  f. 

— biological  view  of,  19,  ff. 

— genius  of  the,  94. 

— identified  with  Government, 
17, 

— its  character,  305,  ff. 

— legal  conception  of,  15. 

—method  of  growth,  28,  40. 

— psychological  view  of, 

25,  84. 

— who  comprises  the,  260. 
Stead,  Herbert,  quoted,  72. 


Test,  religious,  342,  ff. 
Tripolitan  Treaty,  349. 

Unity,  aided   by   social    settle- 
ments, 39. 
—of  church  and  government, 

67- 
— social,  factors  of,  91,  ff. 
Utilitarian  view  of  ideal,  125. 

Walker,  quoted,  188. 
Ward,  referred  to,  100. 
Weismann's  view,  177,  ff. 

— criticised,  182. 
Will,  social,  136,  ff. 


Printed  in  the  United  States  of  America 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 
BERKELEY 


Return  to  desk  from  which  borrowed. 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


mraoiMt 

.     29Feb'56PEf 


SEN 


r~, 


LD  21-100m-9,'47(A5702sl6)476 


YB  06967 


841613 

THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


■I     ill 

I!!'  'ii    I      ill     I 

HP 


wmmm 

■P 

HBHSPn 

WSBT 

;i  iiii-ii 


ii;te?i«i!i{!iiiii  BiSHl 

BHHbBB 

IWBIffi 


